thenceforward RESPONSIBLE for the institutions which he permits in those States, and believes it to be his official duty to respect the old institutions however inhuman, however against Republican Constitutionalism, and even when a violation of a treaty with France…. It is too clear that Lincoln will be a great drag upon everything decisive in policy, and especially where decision is most necessary, i.e. in vesting in the coloured race _power to defend their own rights_. When the war ends, it will be very difficult to hinder the Northern enthusiasm from collapsing and foolish statesmen from doing necessary work by halves.”
In May, 1865, Newman writes these strong words: “President Lincoln was dead against the confiscation of estates, and bent upon restoring a powerful landed aristocracy, with a wretched dependent peasantry free in name only…. A far sterner nature than his was wanted, which understands that Justice to the oppressed must go before Mercy to the guilty; and I believe they have got the right man in Andrew Johnson.”
In February of the year 1866, a great trouble and anxiety fell upon Newman while he and his wife were staying at Hastings. For nine or ten days she seemed to be dying. “We got her through the acute crisis…. I resigned her a full month ago, and have since not dared to hope that she can do anything but linger. Nevertheless her life is less distressing and more worth having than it was. She moves from her bed into an arm-chair; sits at table for dinner…. She talks cheerfully, and can enjoy seeing her sisters. When I look at her I fancy she is pretty well;… yet I feel that she might be carried off very suddenly. Indeed, this was her mother’s case, who had the very same combination of disease, and retained much muscular strength to the last. We had two physicians at Hastings, and here she is under Dr. Garth Wilkinson. I have no complaint against any of the physicians: they seem to me all to have done all they could; but nothing that anyone has done has been of any use. It was by nursing, not by medicine, that she was saved through critical days and nights. The physician said she could not live forty-eight hours, and so we believed: and at her request I sent him away…. I have written so many letters that I forget to whom I have written: and it was indeed a tumultuous existence at Hastings. I have now a good night nurse and cannot say that I want anything; but a great shadow overspreads me.”
The Doctor had evidently miscalculated Mrs. Newman’s strength and recuperative power, however, for in June of the same year:–
“I am happy to say that she” (Mrs. Newman) “now looks very like herself, though feebler and liable (I fear) to relapse. But she is not only in comparative health, but gives a hope of acquiring more soundness in the next three months. I give up this house” (10 Circus Road, N.W.) “in a very few days, and have taken a house in Clifton–1 Dover Place–but it will not be ready for us until 1st August.”
Nearly three months later, he writes:–
“I am at last in my new home, which is very pretty, very pleasant, with delightful prospect, and _perhaps_ may suit me well; but I have sad trouble with a drunken house owner, who kept me twenty-three days out later than his contract,… and has given me roof and pipes either out of repair or insufficient, rat holes very troublesome,… cisterns and taps all in unsatisfactory state. Last night, for the third time in ten days, I have been inundated through two floors.” But he adds more hopefully than the case seems to warrant,” If I can get these matters right my house is very promising. … After a few weeks here my wife’s strength has increased notably, by no other doctor than a donkey chaise, and she now seems just what she was last summer….
“I have had a letter from Pulszky (to whom I had not written on this subject) telling me he is convinced that Bismarck put on a mask of fanatical reactionarism in order to win the confidence of the _King of Prussia!_ … It seemed to me certain, that when new States had to be incorporated with Prussia, despotic reaction would be _impossible_, much more if a German Parliament were summoned. And now the King himself proposes Universal Suffrage for all men above twenty-five and of unblemished character! This seems to make any English Reform Bill impossible, which is not far more democratic than any practical statesman here has yet imagined. Nevertheless, I am increasingly gloomy as to the near future of the English Empire. The Radicals seem perfectly blind as to its centres of danger, and the amount of foreign sympathy which insurrection in India or Ireland will now have. Andrew Johnson seems destined to involve the U.S. in new civil war. I grieve deeply for it.”
The next letter shows Newman settled in at “1 Dover Place, Clifton.” His Anglo-Arabic dictionary is finished, though revisions are to be added later. At the end of the letter he gives the names of those who, he hopes, may some day form a Ministry under Gladstone.
“_12th March_, 1867.
“My dear Nicholson,
“Our correspondence is so slack that I cannot tell what or on what I last wrote, nor where to lay hands on your last…. We have had severe weather all this month, and the snow continues all day since last night; but I am happy to say my dear wife is not the worse…. I remember vividly the spring of 1836, the first year of our marriage: the season from December to May was the severest that I take note of since the great historical winter of 1813 (1812?). This begins to remind me of 1836…. I had hoped that continued work at Arabic would explain to me certain fixed difficulties in the documents which I have studied; but a number of them, even where the printed text is quite clear, remain unsolved. I venture to trouble you with the only words which embarrass me in a rather long and complete narrative of the burial of Abd el Mejied and the ceremonial of installing his brother as his successor. If you can translate the line or half-line I shall be benefited.
“I finished my Anglo-Arabic dictionary three or four weeks ago, but I hope to enrich and revise it. Perhaps the course of public events surprises you as much as me. As the Whigs cannot afford to be outrun by the Tories, it appeared to me at first that I had been wrong in expecting a tough and lingering struggle. Yet it seems to me, in revising details, morally impossible for either Tories or a _Russell_ Ministry to do enough to stop and satisfy the outdoors Reform movement. If _Russell_ would retire, or were forced to retire, and Gladstone had courage and resolution to make a Radical Ministry, including Bright and Mill, Stansfeld, Forster, Milnes, Gibson, etc. (to which the Duke of Argyle would adhere), and were to dissolve Parliament if necessary–even so it would be hard to pass through the Lords a measure adequate to stop the clamour for more, and active agitation. I begin to relapse into my belief that there _must_ be long conflict. Nothing seems to me worth a national Convulsion which does not give us new principles and new persons in the Executive Government. I incline to believe that we shall live to see Radicalism (of a grade far beyond what is popularly so named) in high office and carrying out its principles with energy.”
It will be remembered that Lord John Russell had long tried to reform Parliament. In 1866 he had brought a bill for the purpose before the House of Commons. It was rejected, and with it the Ministry went out. Then, when Lord Derby became Prime Minister, with Disraeli as leader of the House, he found he could do nothing but introduce in 1867 a Reform Bill of a far more marked and definite character than the one which had “gone under” during the last year. This bill, however, passed in August, 1867, showing how the country in the meantime had become more and more ready for such a measure. Its conditions were that borough franchise was given to all rate- payers, and lodgers who used rooms of the annual value of ten pounds. But perhaps a great deal of the driving power came from the large numbers of the working-classes which were now added to the constituencies. In 1868 Disraeli, who had now become Prime Minister, retired when he found that the Liberal majority reached to over a hundred through the new elections. Then came the man of the hour, whom Newman had longed to see in that place–Gladstone, who took the office vacated by Disraeli. At once it was seen how far stronger was this new Ministry than the last, or, indeed, one might perhaps say than many “lasts.” One of its first measures was the always-to-be-regretted one of the disendowment of the Irish Church. Disestablishment, which of course preceded disendowment, was in many respects a gain. The Land Bill followed in 1870, and the next year abolition of religious tests for admission to degrees and offices in the Universities.
“_15th April_, 1867.
“My dear Nicholson,
“I would not have you take any particular trouble about it, but if in your Turkish Dictionary you find (this) to mean _tax_, at your entire leisure (no hurry at all) I should be glad to learn how to pronounce the word.
“I received on Saturday from Washington a newspaper which contains very interesting news from North Carolina and Alabama. N. C. comes out ‘square’ for the Republican party, and Alabama avows Republican sentiments. Both accept negro suffrage and absolute equality of the races. _Coloured orators are prominent and acceptable_.
“I also have a very interesting letter from a coloured gentleman from New Orleans, saying that the last acts of Congress have quite quelled the reign of terror, and brought out the White Unionists, who did not dare to speak before; and they are much more numerous than he had believed. Although Congress has been pusillanimous in the extreme, and always deficient, both as to time and substance, and although the danger of reaction is not past, still everything is turning for the better since the last act of the thirty-ninth Congress and first of the fortieth, and I think we may now hope that the Unionists of the South, white and black, will be able to fight their own battles. In England I do not think _our_ agitation can be appeased by the Reform Bill of this Parliament….
“Ever yours cordially,
“F. W. Newman.”
The following letter concerns Vaccination almost entirely. Newman’s views with respect to vaccination were very clearly set forth in Vol. III of his _Miscellanies_. They come under the heading of an article called “Barbarisms of Civilisation.” [Footnote: Published in the _Contemporary Review_ of June, 1879.] Newman owns to having no medical knowledge of the risks or non-risks of vaccination, but from what he considers to be the rational point of view he objects to it most strongly. He protests that Government Vaccinators have “for many years obtained a large part of what they called _lymph_ … (_pus_, or matter, is the only right word) by inoculating calves or bullocks with small-pox. The result in the animals they are pleased to call _cow-pox_, and when the poisonous matter is transferred back to human infants they assume that it will not produce small-pox! But while the doctrine is orthodox in London, the Local Government in Dublin allows no such dealing.”
He adds: “Unless the _causes_ of small-pox be removed (generally some impurity in the air or in the food), those causes will work mischief somehow. throw an eruptive disease back into the system is proverbially dangerous…. Moreover, what right has any physician to neglect the cures of small-pox, by which herbalists, hydropaths, and Turkish-bath keepers find it a most tractable disease?”
In a letter called “Compulsory Vaccination,” published in 1884, he says: “To obviate it” (small-pox) “by extirpating its causes is good sense; to infuse a new disease without caring to extirpate the causes of the existing disease is a want of common sense.” In the letter following, the “Harry” (Dr. Henry) is the boy who boarded with the Newmans, and left snail-shells stuck on a board when he left! He was well known in the world of science as Professor H. Alleyne Nicholson, of Aberdeen.
There is no date or address on this letter.
“My dear Nicholson,
“I have been pressed to make some reply to Dr. Henry’s Vaccination pamphlet; but excused myself on the ground that it was not pleasant to me to be in public opposition to him, for he was son of an intimate friend of mine;… I have no special knowledge. I look on it from outside the medical art….
“Now in the contents of the pamphlet I read: ‘Small-pox–never produced at present _de novo_.’…
“I make sure that it never _could_ have spread, unless the conditions had in all the other places been highly congenial…. Predisposing causes cannot long accumulate and fester, without curdling into vital action. The _provisional assumption_ with me concerning smallpox, is, that wherever its predisposing causes exist, there the disease will not long be absent. In new foci it may meet new influences which modify its aspect, so that medical men do not recognize it; but that signifies not….
“Now, what is Dr. Henry’s proof?…
“Is there so much as one disease, the origin of which has been recorded scientifically? What he calls ‘the primitive origin’ of small-pox has not been recorded to us scientifically: yet he does not on that account doubt that it did once arise ‘spontaneously.’ I judge just in the same way, when it breaks out now in an English country village. What does the ‘scientific record’ mean? We cannot have a medical man in every room of every house at every moment examining what is under the shirt and shift, with microscope in hand, to see the disease come of _itself_,… Dr. Henry goes on to say, ‘and it APPEARS to have spread solely by infection or contagion.’ It _appears!_ This is so modest, that the reader fancies he may grant it. But the next words are: ‘TWO CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW from this,’ etc. etc. In short, he has forgotten that it is only ‘it appears,’ and fancies that it was c indisputably certain and manifest.’ … After all; if unhealthy conditions are among the prerequisites of small-pox, we have only to remove the unhealthy conditions, and shall not need vaccination (if it were ever so safe): and if you do not remove unhealthy conditions, you are sure of other diseases quite as bad however you may modify the name.”
_Letters from_ 1872 to 1882 (_to Dr Nicholson_).
The first letter of this series is dated 26th December, 1872, from Weston- super-Mare, and is concerned chiefly with his wife’s terrible fall, and also with the movement of the peasants under the initiative of Joseph Arch.
The name of Joseph Arch is too well known to need more than a few words in explanation of the reason why he came to help forward this movement as he did. He was born in Warwickshire in the year 1826, and was essentially one of those who, having determined to rise from the ranks–_rose_. He educated himself during the time while he was working as farm-labourer. Those who have read Father Benson’s _Sentimentalists_, and also Robert Louis Stevenson’s book on the same subject, will not fail to understand how complete and full is the education which comes to a man through both doors–that of physical labour, and that of mental as well. Joseph Arch started in 1872 the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union. Soon he had freed the peasantry from many of their former disabilities. Later he went to Canada to find out as much as he could about emigration and labour questions. In 1885-6 he stood for the N.W. Division of Norfolk.
“_26th Dec_., 1872.
“My dear Nicholson,
* * * * *
“Did I, or did I not, tell you of my wife’s mishap from a terrible fall downstairs? Her right hand will be for a long while stiff from having been tied for nine weeks with a splint on the inside, no finger being allowed to move. This, I am assured, is hospital practice; but it is vehemently condemned by others, and in her case, at least, I believe it was wrong. Whether she will ever recover her _thumb_, I am not sure; for I fear it is still dislocated at the base. She necessarily gives us a great deal to do; I have to act as her amanuensis, besides oiling, shampooing, etc.
“Knowing as I do how you sympathize with rustics and disapprove our existing Land Laws, I make sure that with me you are delighted by the movement of the peasants under the initiative of Joseph Arch to claim access to freehold land by purchase or equivalent payments. I never dared to hope such an initiative from the peasants themselves, but I always foresaw that a destruction of slavery in the U.S. would give to the States such a desire to people their territories and the South, with English immigrants, that our peasants, as soon as they became more wideawake, would have the game in their own hands, and neither farmers nor landlords could resist…. I now should not wonder to live to see … household suffrage extended to the peasantry-and as results, coming some earlier, all soon, overthrow of the existing Drink Traffic, of Contagious Diseases Act, Army Reform on a vast scale, Female Equality with Men in the Eye of the Law, overthrow of Landlords’ predominance…. I wonder whether abolition of Foreign Embassies must precede a serious grapple with the National Debt. I doubt whether any nominally free State ever had such an Augean Stable left to it by forty years’ eminently active legislation. “In corruptissima Republica plurimae leges,” sounds like it. Without carving England and Ireland into States, I do not think the work can be got through: if indeed we are to avoid new wars with Ireland and India, which may God avert!…
“Your constant friend,
“F. W. Newman.”
I quote next from a note written three years later, which ascribes his health to the Triple alliance of his three “Anti’s”–anti-alcohol, anti- tobacco, and anti-flesh food.
* * * * *
“How many a pleasant year has run its course since I first visited you at Penrith! It was the summer of 1842, I think, that we ascended High Street together, a company of seventeen.
“It is my fancy that I could walk as well now: yet I believe it would make me lazy for a week after. Moderate exertions are surely best when one is past seventy, yet my spirits are inexhaustible, and my sense of health perfect. Seriously I attribute this to the TRIPLE ABSTINENCE [from alcohol, from narcotic (tobacco), and from flesh meat]….
“Your affectionate friend,
“F. W. Newman.”
The same year he states in a letter to Dr. Nicholson that the Vegetarian Society is that in which he feels most active interest, “though I am a Good Templar and am earnest in nearly all the _Women’s_ Questions.” And in another, written in August, “I here, as usual” (at Ventnor), “get the luxury of fine fruit at this season (and the unusual luxury of mushrooms), but I do protest that their demand of 4s. a pound for grapes is enough to frighten Cato the elder. [Footnote: Marcus Portius Cato, born at Tusculum 234 B.C., passed his childhood on his father’s farm. In later years he wrote several works on husbandry, its rules, etc. When he was elected Censor in 184 he made great efforts to check national luxury and to urge a return to the simpler life of his Roman ancestors. He was very strict and despotic as regards contract prices paid by the State, and constantly altered those for food, carriages, slaves, dress, etc.] The price of lodgings at Shanklin and here is much higher than two years back. It seems to me that everything is going up, here, in America, on the Continent, and in India; yet I do not see how to impute it to the increased supply of gold. I think that the working classes are everywhere demanding and getting a larger share of the total which is produced….
“Believe me your true friend,
“F. W. Newman.”
Four years elapse between this letter and the next from which I shall quote. During this interval Newman’s wife died (16th July, 1876), and was mourned long and sincerely. He was now seventy-one years of age, and had, as his letters show, begun already to feel lack of power and health. It was evident to himself towards the end of the eighteen months which followed her death that he should not be able to live alone, and yet there was no relation he could ask to come and be with him.
In December, 1879, the following letters were written by Newman to Dr. Nicholson concerning his second marriage to Miss Williams, who had for many years lived with his first wife, and been very devoted in her care and attention to her.
“_29th Dec_., 1879.
“My dear Nicholson,
“I felt very warmly the kindness of your letter which congratulated me on my remarriage, and I have often desired to write to you that you might feel how unchanged is my regard for you, though circumstances do not at all carry me so far north as your dwelling. I may briefly add, that a year’s experience quite justifies my expectation. The marriage was not in my estimate an experiment, which might succeed or fail…. That my wife’s health is not robust, I certainly grieve, but she is nineteen years my junior. Our love and trust has only increased month by month…. This black edge” (of the note paper) “is for my only surviving sister, whose death is just announced to me. She was my fondest object of boyish love, and it is impossible not to grieve. On the other hand, I had long expected it, and did not at all think she would survive _last_ winter…. I believe she was loved and respected by _everyone_ who knew her, as truly she deserved to be. I feel good consolation in this…. For three years our public doings have been to me so mournful and dreadful–with no power anywhere to stay the madness of the Court and Ministry,–that I have been made unwilling to write about them. Retribution for such deeds seemed to me certain, inevitable: it seems to be coming more speedily than I had expected. Stormy controversies must in any case be here encountered. But ever since 1856 (I might date from the day when Lord Dalhousie went to India–1848?) we seem to have been storing up wrath and vengeance against ourselves,–worse and worse at home as well as abroad, since the death of Peel. I never admired Peel: he had to trim to the Tories: but I now see how moderate Peel kept them, and in comparison how wise Peel was.
“So many are the eminently good men and women in England that I am certain we must have a nobler future: but that may be separated from the present time by a terrible struggle….
“I am your affectionate friend,
“F. W. Newman.”
In briefly reviewing the year 1881 in its effects on nation and Government, it is necessary to cast one’s thoughts back to the time when Lord Beaconsfield took office in 1874, in order to grasp the drift of Newman’s next letter. In 1874 the former became Prime Minister for the second time. He had not been long in office before he made an end of Church patronage in Scotland. The next year he was carrying forward his design of procuring part ownership for England of the Suez Canal. He did not attach sufficient importance to the Bulgarian atrocities to set going any British interference. This in itself is an act which can find no defence. He declared Turkey must be upheld as a stronghold against the aggression of Russia. In the year 1878, Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury attended the Berlin Congress. This at once raised the former to the highest political importance, but it undid all the splendid work done by the English army, which had, at the order of a blundering, mistaken Government, been sent to obtain for England, through means of the Crimean War, a victory rendered completely null and void a short time later by the doings of this Congress at Berlin.
Then followed the Afghan and Zulu Wars and subsequent troubles and upheavals: trade depression in Ireland; and finally, in 1880, came the General Election, which restored the Liberal party to power.
“_1st Oct_., 1881.
“My dear Nicholson,
“I was glad to get your letter, but frightened when I found it open (the gum wholly fresh) and no photograph in it. [Footnote: I believe the photo given in this volume, of Dr. Nicholson, to be the one referred to here.] I feared it was taken out. But next day came the real thing. It is excellent. The slight excess of black in the left eye is perhaps quite natural. In a three-quarter face the light does not fall alike on both eyes, and we do not in real life compare a friend’s two eyes (they move too quick); we see only one at a time. [Footnote: Francis Newman expressed once his theory that in the case of a photograph being taken of a man, unconsciously to himself, the expression of the portrait will in some curious manner change as his character changes.] The photo pleasantly renews my old memories….
“_Immediate_ politics sicken _me_ as well as you. I do not (with a zealous friend) groan over 1881 as unrelieved gloom, completed by the murder of an amiable and innocent President: but I deliberately conclude we are launched in a season of TRANSITION that _must_ have its sadness just as has a war: and it is wise to look on beyond the troubled years…. The course of change may largely depend on events in India which not one Englishman in a thousand dreams of. In 1881, thus far, I rejoice in the incipient elevation of Greece, and the probable deliverance of Armenia. I think the great Powers _will not_ quarrel over the carcase of Turkey: and though Frenchmen may justly make outcry against French ambition in North Africa, yet as an Englishman and a European I do not regret it. As _I_ see no power but Russia who can impart improved rule to Armenia and Persia, so no one but France can give it in North Africa. My _immediate_ interest in the politics of the High Powers is to see them combine against the Slave Trade, in Turkey, and _in the Pacific_. In domestic Politics I care _most_ for the social and moral questions, which are painful, pressing, and disgracefully delayed. But all will come; and the great question of Landed Tenure will aid the best influences….
“I am your affectionate old friend,
“F. W. Newman.”
On 26th Nov., 1881, Newman caused some copies of the following letter to be printed and sent round to his friends, etc.:–
“My dear —-,
“Friends are always greedy of details concerning sudden illness. This is my excuse for sending a printed circular.
“In short, my general health continues as excellent as usual; but I have received a sharp warning, which I would gladly be able to call a mere fright. After many days of close and continuous writing, I found myself suddenly disabled in my right hand. I could not interpret it as merely muscular. There was no inability of motion or grasping, but want of delicacy in feeling, which made my pen slip round in my fingers. I was forced to conclude the _brain_ involved.
“Therefore it seemed possible that I was only at the beginning of real paralysis. Prudence absolutely required me to back out of two engagements. This illness, such as it is, has not come on in a day, and demands time for cure. Some ten days of cessation have somewhat (but very imperfectly) restored my power of writing; but I must not undertake any tasks at present. My sole remedy has been to keep the arm warm. It is still somewhat weak. I wished, if this affection were temporary, to say nothing about it; but that has proved impossible.
“I am, yours as ever,
“Francis W. Newman.”
* * * * *
There are many allusions to this trouble of the arm in later letters. Indeed, it is impossible not to see how very much it has crippled his handwriting; he mentions once or twice that he finds it very difficult to keep his hand steady.
In May, 1882, he writes to Dr. Nicholson concerning the news of the moment–the murder of Lord Henry Cavendish and Mr. Burke, at Phoenix Park. It will be remembered that it happened at the end of all the obstructive tactics used by Parnell and his Home Rule Party, which was organized to prevent coercion being used, and also to force on England the compulsion of legislating promptly for Ireland the measures demanded by the Nationalists. It was not until 1886 Gladstone brought before Parliament a measure which would give a Statutory Parliament to Ireland. Later, after the rejection of the bill on its second reading, Gladstone appealed to the country, and when the General Election brought back a Conservative majority, he was defeated.
Lord Frederick Cavendish became in 1882 Chief Secretary for Ireland, in succession to Mr. Forster. On 6th May he and Mr. Burke (his unpopular subordinate) were stabbed in Phoenix Park.
The allusion to Newman’s study of the Libyan language occurs in the letter following, as it has done in more than one of the others about this time. The Numidians were descended from the race from which the modern Berbers are drawn. Their name was drawn from the Greek word Nomades–Land of Nomads; and was given to tribes in Northern Africa by the Romans.
“_8th May_, 1882.
* * * * *
“To-day we have heard with horror of the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish, and with grief, if with once or twice that he finds it very difficult to keep his hand steady.
In May, 1882, he writes to Dr. Nicholson concerning the news of the moment–the murder of Lord Henry Cavendish and Mr. Burke, at Phoenix Park. It will be remembered that it happened at the end of all the obstructive tactics used by Parnell and his Home Rule Party, which was organized to prevent coercion being used, and also to force on England the compulsion of legislating promptly for Ireland the measures demanded by the Nationalists. It was not until 1886 Gladstone brought before Parliament a measure which would give a Statutory Parliament to Ireland. Later, after the rejection of the bill on its second reading, Gladstone appealed to the country, and when the General Election brought back a Conservative majority, he was defeated.
Lord Frederick Cavendish became in 1882 Chief Secretary for Ireland, in succession to Mr. Forster. On 6th May he and Mr. Burke (his unpopular subordinate) were stabbed in Phoenix Park.
The allusion to Newman’s study of the Libyan language occurs in the letter following, as it has done in more than one of the others about this time. The Numidians were descended from the race from which the modern Berbers are drawn. Their name was drawn from the Greek word _Nomades_–Land of Nomads; and was given to tribes in Northern Africa by the Romans.
“_8th May_, 1882.
* * * * *
“To-day we have heard with horror of the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish, and with grief, if with less horror, of Mr. Burke’s. I felt persuaded from the first that the assassins would aim only at Mr. Burke, who has long been regarded as the perverter of every Viceroy and Secretary; but in mere self-defence they also killed his companion, perhaps not even knowing who he was. Lord Frederick Cavendish was almost unknown to the Irish, and cannot have been hated by them as Mr. Forster was.
“My second thought on this grievous affair is, that it is likely to call out so sincere a disavowal from collective Ireland, and from the most extreme of Irish politicians, that it may help to reconcile Irish patriots and the Liberal Ministry. To have a common grief is a moral cement. Also it seems to compel Mr. Gladstone to send as Irish Secretary an _Irishman_, and one publicly esteemed as Irish patriot, as well as a sincere friend to the English connection; and from what I have heard before this event, Mr. Shaw seems to be a very likely man.
“Meanwhile, sad to say, Mr. Gladstone entrenches himself, and _blocks up_ business by the Rules of Procedure.
“Well, Ireland is taking a leaf out of Nihilism. It is bad enough, yet not so bad as with the poor Czar….
“Yours cordially in old esteem,
“F. W. Newman.”
“On Saturday I corrected the last proofs of my essay towards a Numidian dictionary. Yesterday a friend sent me a scrap from Paris, in which Renan avows that until a Numidian dictionary is compiled they cannot begin to decipher inscriptions in the _Canaries!_ I fancy the Canary language is a wide step off.”
Each succeeding year after 1882 Newman complains from time to time, in his letters to his friends, of increasing infirmities and physical disabilities, which made travelling often exceedingly trying for his head, and rendered him more and more dependent on his wife. He had for a long time suffered a great deal from his eyes, and consequently during the last few years of his life writing letters became a physical weariness. He was also subject to a sudden loss of brain power, when he found himself completely unable at times to speak consecutively.
[Illustration: ANNA SWANWICK
FROM A PORTRAIT PAINTED BY MISS V. BRUCE]
CHAPTER X
LETTERS WRITTEN TO MISS ANNA SWANWICK (BETWEEN 1871 AND 1887)
Anna Swanwick was one of the most remarkable women of her age–one of the most intellectual, one of the most thoughtful as regards the social educational movements of her time, which was the early part of the last century. Yet there is a passage in a lecture delivered by her at Bedford College which reveals only too clearly the straitened and limited means at the disposal of girls in those days who wished to climb the stairs of that Higher Education so easy to men, but then so very difficult of access for women. She says:–
“In my young days, though I attended what was considered the best girls’ school in Liverpool, the education there given was so meagre that I felt like the Peri excluded from Paradise, and I often longed to assume the costume of a boy in order to learn Latin, Greek, and mathematics, which were then regarded as essential to a liberal education for boys, but were not thought of for girls. To give some idea of the educational meagreness alluded to above, I may mention the fact that during my schooldays I never remember to have seen a map, while all my knowledge of geography was derived from passages learnt by rote.” I quote this from one of the most delightful memoirs I have come across for a long time: _Anna Swanwick; a Memoir and Recollections_, by Miss Mary Brace. [Footnote: Published by Fisher Unwin.]
But no “educational meagreness” can keep the feet of some climbers off the educational ladder. It may be with slow, “sad steps” they “climb the sky” of the higher education. Nevertheless the effort is doggedly made. For in all great men, as in all great women, there is something-call it genius, call it what you like–which _forces_ its way through, be the impediments what they may.
Anna Swanwick, to whom the following letters were written at various intervals, was well known for her philanthropic and educational work among the poorer classes, and also for her earnest endeavours for the larger development of women’s work and education. A large part of her own education in Greek and Hebrew was carried forward at Berlin. In 1830 Bedford College was opened. Miss Bruce tells us that Francis Newman and Augustus de Morgan, Dr. Carpenter, and other famous lecturers were among the first to lecture there. I imagine it was here that the friendship of forty years between Anna Swanwick and Francis Newman began. The former was specially impressed with Newman’s method of teaching mathematics. I quote her words from Miss Bruce’s _Memoir_:–
“I remember being particularly impressed by F. W. Newman’s teaching of mathematics, including geometry and algebra; he saw at a glance if one of his pupils in algebra was not able to follow his calculations, which were often very elaborate; on such occasions, instead of endeavouring to explain the difficulty to a single pupil, thus keeping the entire class waiting, he would interest them all by placing the subject in an entirely new light, which was possible only to one who had a complete mastery of his subject–one who, looking down from a mental height, could see the various paths by which the higher eminence could be reached.”
I cannot but mention here the supreme service Anna Swanwick was able to render Newman at the end of his life. It was in the last letter which he wrote to her, when he was ninety-two, that these words occur. After stating that he wished “once again definitely to take the name of Christian,” he adds: “I close by my now sufficient definition of a Christian, c one who in heart and steadily is a disciple of Jesus in upholding the prayer called the Lord’s Prayer as the highest and purest in any known national religion.’ I think J. M. will approve this. [Footnote: James Martineau.] … My new idea is perhaps with you very old…. Asked what is a Christian, I reply, one who earnestly uses in word and substance the traditional Prayer of Jesus, older than any Gospel–this supplants all creeds.” This letter was written shortly before his death.
Since I have been writing this memoir I had a letter from Mr. William Tallack, who quoted these words of Mr. Garrett Horder with respect to Francis Newman’s final return to the Christian Faith. This fact had been published in a paper in 1903.
“Not more than three or four years before Dr. Martineau’s death I was sitting in an omnibus at Oxford Circus, when Dr. Martineau, accompanied by his daughter, got in, and took seats by my side. After I had expressed my pleasure at seeing them, he said, c I think you ought to know that the other day I had a letter from Frank Newman, saying that when he died he wished it to be known, that he died in the Christian Faith.'”
To my mind no memoir would be complete with that knowledge left out– Newman’s return to his former Faith.
The first letter in the collection before me concerns one of Newman’s brothers. Perhaps most of us can count a “Charles Robert” in our environment. Someone whose “worm i’ the bud” of their character has so completely spoilt its early flower on account of the “one ruinous vice” of “censoriousness,” of perpetual nagging, and fault-finding developed to such a pitch that it has eaten out at last the fair heart of human forbearance and kindness which is the birthright of everyone. Such a person makes the true, free development of others in his proximity a harder task than God intended it to be, for this reason: that the best character cannot do itself justice if it is aware that all its sayings and doings are capped promptly by wrong constructions placed there by “the chiel amang” them “takin'” unfavourable “notes.”
Such a one was Charles Robert Newman. At the date at which this letter was written his own family had found him so “impossible” that for thirty or forty years no intercourse had taken place between them.
_To Miss Anna Swanwick from Frank Newman._
“45 Bedford Gardens, W.
“_Tuesday, 4th July_, 1871.
“My dear Anna,
“… I look forward with hope that after my whole life has been a constant preparation for doing–as yet very little–for the good of those who have had fewer advantages than myself, I may perhaps be able in my very ripe years to contribute something more; especially by aid of the noble women who from all quarters spring up to the succour of their own sex and of the public welfare: I trust I shall not permit _any_ literary tastes or fancies to withdraw my energies from this and similar causes…. But every one of us who is to do anything worthy must forget self, and, above all, must not cast self-complacent glances on what he is, or does, or has done; and, in truth, I have so deep a dissatisfaction with what I am and have been, that my poor consolation is to think how much worse I might have been…. I must add you evidently do not know that I have _two_ brothers. The eldest, Dr. J. H. N.; the second, Charles Robert N., three years older than myself, of whom we do not speak, because he is as unfit for society as if insane. He is a Cynic Philosopher in modern dress, having many virtues, but one ruinous vice, that of perpetual censoriousness, by which he alienates every friend as soon as made, or in the making, by which he ejected himself from all posts of usefulness. … He has lived now more than thirty years in retirement and idleness. His moral ruin was from Robert Owen’s _Socialism and Atheistic Philosophy_; but he presently began his rebukes on Robert Owen himself. His sole pleasure in company seems to be in noting down material for ingenious, impertinent, and insolent fault- finding; hence no one can safely admit him. He formally renounced his mother, brothers, and sisters about forty years ago, and wrote to other persons requesting them not to count him a Newman … because we were religious and he was an Atheist. He had _all the same dear sweet influences of home as all of us_; yet how unamiable and useless has he become! still loving to snarl most at the hands that feed him. Is not this an admonition not to attribute too much to the single cause of home Influences, however precious? I shall be happy to attend to your _Aeschylus_. Lovingly yours,
“F. W. Newman.”
“Weston-super-Mare,
“_30th July_, 1880.
“My dear Anna,
“… I am made very melancholy these two days by the news from Afghanistan, not that anything comes to me as new: I have dreaded it all along, ever since I discerned that the Gladstone ministry would not_ act on the moral principles which Mr. Grant Duff definitely professed, which, indeed, Mr. Gladstone so emphatically avowed in his book on _Church and State_, and in every grave utterance. Ever since Sir Stafford Northcote so boldly taunted the (then) Opposition, in the words: ‘You call our policy _crime_; but will you dare to pledge yourselves to reverse it if you come into power? No, you will not dare.’ And none of the Opposition said frankly, ‘We _will_ reverse it’; it was clear to me that they had not the moral courage. Accordingly I warned friends who asked my judgment, that it is _in the Russo-Turkish affairs_ the Liberals (so called) would reverse _the policy, but in Afghanistan and S. Africa_ they would act precisely as Lord Beaconsfield would act; would accept the positions which they had condemned; would appear to the natives as continuing the same course of wicked aggression; would do justice only _so far as compelled_, and _no sooner_; which is exactly what Lord Beaconsfield was sure to do…. We now see that a new war opens upon us both in Afghanistan and, it is to be feared, from the Basutos with the Liberal party in power, and their great leader to bear the main responsibility!! It is a frightful outlook…. We had only to say frankly to the Afghan chiefs: ‘We always opposed the war as unjust: we bitterly lament it: we cannot restore the dead or heal the crippled, but _we will repay you whatever sum of money a Russian arbitrator may award to you against us_. (!) We will withdraw from your country in peace as fast as we can, and leave you masters in your own land.'”
It will be remembered that so far back as 1838, Sir James Outram [Footnote: Named by his great friend, George Giberne (later on Judge in the Bombay Presidency), the “Bayard of India.”] did great services in the first Afghan War. It was thought by many that had he remained in the Ghilzee country many of our disasters might not have occurred. But Lord Ellenborough–one of the many mistakes placed by our Government in authority in India during a critical time–never recognized in any way his services.
“It is certain they would have seen this to be sincere, and would have been delighted to get rid of us without more bloodshed…. It is pretended that it would be _cruel_ to leave Afghanistan without first securing to it a stable government, when obviously we are without moral power there to add stability. Our presence makes enmity among them…. Alas! once more I find Mr. Gladstone fail of daring to act according to his own moral principles. He ought not to have accepted office…. It makes me very sad for what must come upon England, and perhaps on all English settlers in S. Africa, to say nothing of India and Anglo-Indians.
“I am, yours ever affectionately,
“F. W. N.”
The next letter is dated 31st Dec., 1880, and treats mostly of agriculture in the fens, in connection with a writer on the subject in some current paper.
“He” (the writer) “says that if a general move were made in the fens to stamp out the weeds (which would require an immense expenditure of money in wages), ‘very different results would be obtained from what we now see.’ No doubt they would. But what then? The landlord would raise the rent, and the farmers would have spent their capital without remuneration. _Nothing but a security against the rise of rent_ can encourage the farmers to make sacrifices. He justly says … that fruit might be more profitable. But if a farmer plant a fruit tree, it becomes his landlord’s property at once, though it may need thirteen or thirty years to come to its fullest value…. The writer treats a _lowering_ of rent as out of the question. Yet from 1847 up to about 1876 it was constantly _rising_. Now, forsooth! to go back is _impossible!!!_ And why, because _recent buyers have bought at so high a price_ that they only get three per cent. They are to be protected from losing, and that, though many have bought at a fancy price to indulge other tastes than properly agricultural. Mr. Pennington [Footnote: An old friend of Newman’s.] told me he had farms under his own management and despaired of not losing by them, unless he could drive down the need of _paying wages_. This is what the farmers find. Up to 1875 rents kept rising, and wages rose too, yet prices rising, the peasants were not much better off. In 1873 the peasants claimed more still, and the farmers could not give it. They are ground between two millstones–higher rents and higher wages. This seems to me a fundamental refutation of the peculiarly English system. _Fixity of rent is the first necessity._ The landlord must not pocket the fruit of the tenants’ labour.”
The following letter has to do almost entirely with politics, and with English misrule of Ireland.
It will be remembered that from 1880, when Gladstone came into office, until 1885, when his Prime Ministership ended, wars were the order of the day constantly–wars in the Transvaal; war in Afghanistan; war in Egypt, and General Gordon left to die in Khartoum. Besides all these, that which came upon us constantly, the care of countries nearer at hand over which we tried experiments.
“Weston-super-Mare.
“Sunday night, _20th Feb_., 1881.
“My dear Anna,
“Many thanks for your kind interest in the approval of my writings.
“I have come to a pause in another matter. My Libyan dictionary is as complete as I can make it…. What next? I ask myself; for _to be idle is soon to be miserable_. I do not quite say with Clough, ‘_Qui laborat, orat_’ No! An eminent vivisector may be immensely laborious. We must choose our labour well, for then it may help us to pray _better_. But Coleridge is surely nearer the truth: ‘He prayeth well who _loveth_ well.’ I put it, Qui _inferiora_ recte diligit, Superiorem bene venerabitur.
“But I turn to your question, What do I think of the Coercion Bill? It is hard to say little, and painful to speak plainly. I immensely admire _very much_ in Mr. Gladstone; so do you: of possible leaders he is the best–at present! and it is a bitter disappointment to find him a reed that pierces the hand when one leans on it. I fear you will not like me to say, what I say with pain, that only in European affairs do I find him commendable. In regard to our unjust wars he has simply _betrayed and deluded_ the electors who enthusiastically aided him to power…. He has gone wholly wrong towards Ireland, equally as towards Afghanistan, India, and South Africa…. He knows as well as John Bright that Ireland is not only chronically injured by English institutions, but that Ireland has every reason to distrust promises.
“Those of William III in the pacification were violated; so were those of Mr. Pitt in 1801…. The very least that could soothe the Irish and give them hope is a clear enunciation _what_ measures of relief Mr. Gladstone is resolved _to propose_. But he is incurably averse to definite statements, and seems as anxious as a Palmerston might be to reserve a power of shuffling out…. He tells the Boers of the Transvaal that if they will submit unconditionally, they shall meet ‘generous’ treatment. If the injured Basutos submit, their case will be _carefully considered_…. Nothing was to me more obvious than that as soon as he saw a beginning of unruly conduct in Ireland, he should have pledged himself to clearly defined measures, and have insisted on the existing law against lawlessness. But ‘Boycotting’ is _not_ lawlessness. Lynch-law against oppressive landlords or their agents cannot be put down by intensifying national hatred…. Has the Coercion been wisely directed and reasonably guarded from abuse? I am sorry to say, flatly and plainly, No; and that Mr. Gladstone himself, as well as Mr. Forster, seems to have gone more and more to the wrong as the Bill moved on…. Mr. Forster’s tone has been simply ferocious, out of Parliament as well as in, and Mr. Gladstone has borrowed a spice of ferocity…. To imprison (for instance) Mr. Parnell, and _not tell him why_, may cause an exasperation in Ireland, followed by much bloodshed…. Meanwhile, Ireland is made more and more hostile, and foreign nations more and more condemn us…. It seems to be forgotten that we have an army locked up at Candahar. _That a severe spring may be its ruin_, deficient as it was known to be long ago in fodder and fuel, and lately of provisions also. Cannon are of little use when horses are starved. And what may not happen in India, injured and irritated as it is, if that army were lost!… John Stuart Mill wrote that if we got into civil war with Ireland about Landed Tenure, no Government would pity us, and ‘all the Garibaldis in the world’ would be against us….
“Your affectionate friend,
“F. W. Newman.”
The following letter concerns the Transvaal war, and is dated March 2nd, 1881:–
* * * * *
“Since Mr. Gladstone cannot have _changed his judgment_ concerning the Beaconsfield policy in Afghanistan, in India, or in South Africa, the only inference is that (from one reason or other which I may or may not know) _he is not strong enough to carry out his own convictions of right_. If he was not strong enough to give back the Transvaal to the Boers, though he pronounced the annexation all but insanity, when he entered office, and _had a power of stipulating_ on what terms alone he would be Premier, much less is he strong enough now. Not Tories only, but Whigs (to judge by their past) and the whole mass of our honest fighters, and certainly the Court, will find it an unendurable humiliation to do justice _by compulsion of the Boers_. Their atrocious doctrine is, that before we confess that we have done them wrong, we must first murder enough of them to show that we are the stronger. It is awful to attribute sentiment so wicked to the Premier, or to John Bright and the rising Radical element of the Ministry; but the melancholy fact is that they act before the public _as if_ this were their doctrine…. The Coercion Bill and its errors are past and irrecoverable…. How will it now aid us to hold up to the public Mr. Gladstone’s irrecoverable mistakes? That is what I cannot make out. He has destroyed public confidence in all possible successors to the Premiership, if confidence could be placed in any. I know not one who could be trusted to INSIST on stopping war and wasting no more blood. Yet the longer this war lasts, the greater the danger (1) that all the Dutch in Orange State, in Natal, in Cape Colony will unite against us; (2) that an attack on us in retreat from Candahar, where Mr. Gladstone has ‘insanely’ continued war, if moderately successful, may make even yet new ‘vengeance’ of Afghans seem ‘necessary to our prestige’–such are the immoral principles dominant among Whigs as well as Tories; (3) any such embroilments may animate Ireland to insurrectionary defiance; (4) further Afghan fighting may lead to Indian revolt…. The nation has found that no possible Ministry will make common justice its rule. Penny newspapers make us widely different now from thirty or forty years ago. The masses _abhor war_, and will only sanction it when we seem forced to it in defence of public freedom. … The internal quiet of France has stript Republicanism of terrors to our moneyed classes. Not the thing, but the transition to it is feared: with good reason, yet perhaps not rightly in an intelligent people.
“Some sudden change of events may put off Republicanism yet for thirty years; but great disasters may precipitate it…. We, the people, can do nothing at present that I see except avow with Lord John Russell (1853-4), ‘God prosper the Right’ which now means ‘May we be defeated whenever we are in the wrong.’ This is the only _patriotic_ prayer.
“F. W. N.”
Again, in October, Newman is reviewing Gladstone’s political character, and regretting that it has not fulfilled its first high promise.
* * * * *
“We must make the best we can of all our public men, and eminently of Mr. Gladstone, and be thankful for all we get from him. Yet I cannot help, when I remember his undoubtedly sincere religion and moral professions, expecting from him _a higher morality_ than from Palmerston, Wellington, or Peel. Peel was a valuable minister, and better every five years. I counted and count his loss a great one. Yet his first question in determining action or speech was, “How many votes will support me?” a topic reasonable in _all minor questions_, but not where essentially Right or Wrong are concerned. I grieve if you rightly attribute to Mr. Gladstone that he would have arrested Mr. Parnell earlier, only that he did not think the English public _ripe_ for approving it. The public is now _irritated_ by Mr. P.’s conduct. If it is against law, he ought to be prosecuted by law, informed of his offence, and allowed to defend himself…. The whole idea of _lessening crime_ by passing an Act to take away the cardinal liberty of speech enjoyed by Englishmen (and M.P.’s) and deprive them not only of Jury, but of _Judge_ and _Accuser_, while REFUSING to prohibit evictions in the interval between the passing of the Violence Bill (coercive of guilt it is not) and the passing of the Conciliation and Justice Bill, is to me amazing…. I rather believe the fact is that he” (Gladstone) “carried his Coercion Bill against the scruples and grave fears of all the most valuable part of his Cabinet. Instead of earning gratitude from Ireland, he has intensely irritated both the landlords and the opposite party, and certainly has not diminished crime, nor aided towards punishing it.
“I attribute it all to the fact that he has not understood that when pressed into the highest post by the enthusiasm of the country, he was bound by _honour_ and common sense to carry out _his own avowed policy_, not that of weak friends and bitter opponents. The attempt to _count votes beforehand_ is fatal where great moral issues are involved.”
And again, in November:–
“Have we yet the measure of what we are to suffer from the continuance of the Afghan war? I believe a million and a half per month does not exceed the cost–that is, about fourteen millions _since Mr. Gladstone came into power_; but if the winter continue severe, the whole army may be lost, in spite of our bravery and military science. We seem to forget how the Russian winter ruined Napoleon, and in the case of the Transvaal how much our armies suffered in the war against our American colonists from the vastness of distances, and the skill of shooting almost universal to the colonists.
“I regard Mr. Gladstone as the best Premier by far now possible to us…. There is no shadow of responsibility left in a cabinet if we do not impute all its errors to its _Head_; and I regard it as a terrible fact, pregnant with possible revolution, that _he has betrayed the Electors_. The country hushed its many and various desires of domestic reform for one overwhelming claim, PEACE. They bore him into power on that firm belief. Instead of peace we have war–war which may spread like a conflagration. His clear duty was (and John Bright’s too) _to refuse to take office_ except on the condition of instantly reversing all the wickedness and insanity which he denounced when out of office. He and he only could have stayed these plagues. We are now hated for our acts, and despised for our affectation of Justice and Philanthropy.
* * * * *
“I am thoroughly aware that my judgment of Mr. Gladstone may be wrong, and to myself it is so painful that I expect a majority of his supporters will differ from it. But when I say he has increased–immensely increased–ALL HIS DIFFICULTIES, I marvel how you can deduce from my judgment that I _underrate_ his difficulties…. If Ireland be in chronic revolt, and India seize the opportunity, few Englishmen are likely to suffer less from it than I. Probably Mr. Gladstone, by the fear lest the Tories now seek to ride back into power on the shoulders of Ireland, will resolutely make _household suffrage for the counties_ his main effort.
“But there the Lords can checkmate him.”
Before quoting from the next letter before me, written to Anna Swanwick in February, 1884, which treats of the best method of teaching languages, ancient and modern, that practice should precede the scientific study in this matter; and that the “popular side should go first,” I think a quotation from Newman’s article (_Miscellanies_, Vol. V) on Modern Latin as a Basis of Instruction, would fitly come in here. The article makes a great point of popularizing the study of Latin. That it should practically be made an interesting subject not devoid of romance and imagination. He condemns the old fashion (still, alas! in vogue in many schools) of committing to memory an enormous amount of matter quite unworthy of being retained in the mind. He urges the need of a “Latin novel”–a Latin comedy; one that would set alight the imagination of young scholars.
In Miss Bruce’s _Memoir and Recollections_ of Anna Swanwick, there is mention of the fact that the latter often mentioned the insight she herself obtained in the intricacies of the Greek language through help given her by Frank Newman. She also quotes his words with regard to geometry, showing that the same need in teaching it prevailed as with the study of Greek. That the imagination must be stimulated. A sense of beauty must be cultivated. That the whole secret lay in the _way_ a thing was presented to the mind of the student. For unless the sense of beauty and symmetry had been aroused in him, he would of necessity find far more difficulty in retaining the, so to speak, statistical Blue-book of the groundwork and rules of any science. Newman himself was an adept at putting a subject in an entirely new light, when some pupil failed, perhaps, to follow his calculations or explanations. In relation to the teaching of Greek, the following words of Miss Swanwick’s (in the _Memoir_ to which I have just referred) show how thoroughly she and Newman were in accord.
“Deeply interested as I was in the study of Greek, and intense as was the pleasure of its acquisition, I yet hesitate to recommend it as a part of the curriculum of boys and girls, unless it can be taken later, and with more concentrated determination to master the extremely difficult grammar, than is usually given to school lessons…. It is to be remembered, moreover, that in the literature of Greece and Rome there are no words adapted expressly for the young. The ancient classics, written by adults for adults, are beyond the intelligence of immature minds, whilst in regard to the moral lessons to be drawn from them, the superiority, in my opinion, is vastly in favour of more modern writers.”
Anna Swanwick’s original desire to learn Greek was (Miss Bruce tells us in the former’s own words) “to be able to read the New Testament in the original.”
I quote now from Newman’s article:–
“Children can learn two languages, or even three at once; and this, if these are spoken to them by different individuals, without confusion and without being less able to learn other things. Memory is aided because imagination connects the words with a person, a scene, or events; and, little by little, the utility of speech calls forth active efforts in the learner…. In general the old method was one of repetition: _it dealt immensely in committing Latin to memory_…. Nothing is easier to boys than such learning, even when the thing learned is uninteresting… yet… means should be taken of making it interesting and instructive and rhythmical…. It seems to me that we want what I may call a Latin novel or romance; that is, a pleasing tale of fiction, which shall convey numerous Latin words, which do not easily find a place in poetry, history, or philosophy…. If anyone had genius to produce, in Terentian style, Latin comedies worthy of engaging the minds and hearts of youth (for I can never read a play of Terence to a young class without the heartache), I should regard this as a valuable contribution.” [Footnote: Mr. Darbishire says in a letter to which I have had access: “One of his” (Newman’s) “special endeavours was to accustom his students to deal with Greek as a spoken language, as he and we did in reading Greek plays.”]
To return to the letter.
“Weston-super-Mare,
“_16th Feb._, 1884.
“My dear Friend,
“The late Professor George Long (my predecessor in University College), editor of the _Penny Cyclopaedia_ was originally professor of Greek and a student of Sanskrit. He maintained that German, studied as it ought to be, prepared the mind for other work as effectively as could Greek, and, as Dr. W. B. Hodgson (and I too) independently alleged, that the study of _modern_ languages and learning to _talk_ them ought to _precede_ the study of Greek. To make Greek the basis of an entire school and force it on all is with me cruelty as well as folly. Five out of six women and men would not learn it enough to _retain_ or _use_ it. If you place ancient languages and all that cannot be learned by _talking_ at the END, only those will study who have a special object, and these will duly _use_ them. I think that is the only wise and _just_ way. Further, I think it a grave mistake to teach the scientific _side_ of any language first, and try to proceed through science to practice. The popular side should go first. Greeks talked rightly before Protagoras, but Protagoras first taught that Greek had three genders…. _After_ a full acquaintance with the substance of a language, its laws and relationships come naturally and profitably. In a dead language we are _forced_ to bring on the science earlier: that is the reason for deferring such study till a riper age; and best if delayed until _after_ learning several _modern_ languages (by talking, if possible), the more different from one another the _better_. English, German or Russian or Latin, and Arabic would be three very different in kind.
“Our English Professor Latham used to talk much error, in my judgment, of the supreme value to the intellect of studying FORM. This word was to include the ‘accidence’ of language with the fewest possible words; algebra with the least possible arithmetic … Logic without real proposition…. Now, in my belief, and that of _De Morgan_ and the late Professor Boole, nothing so ruins the mind as to accustom it to think that it knows something when it can attach no definite ideas to the symbols over which it chatters.”
To-day, what educational strides should we not make if we could but bring our present systems of teaching into line with these of Newman’s!
It will be remembered that in March, 1886, Gladstone caused great dissension in his own party by bringing in his measure for giving Ireland a statutory parliament. The bill was rejected at its second reading, and when Gladstone made his appeal to the country, the general election showed he had lost its confidence. He had based his belief that Ireland was ripe for some measure of Home Rule, on account of the fact that the election under the new Reform Bill had proved that out of 103 Irish members 87 were Nationalists.
“_5th May_, 1885
“My dear Anna,
* * * * *
“The Irish question, as now presented, is in a very sad imbroglio. After our monstrous errors of policy and the infliction on Ireland of miseries and degradation unparalleled in Europe, to expect to bring things right without humiliation and without risks of what cannot be foreseen, seems to me conceit and ignorance. Evildoers _must_ have humiliation, _must_ have risks, when they try to go right. Opponents will always be able to argue, as did Alcibiades to the Athenians: ‘We hold our supremacy as a despotism; therefore it is no longer _safe_ for us to play the part of virtue.’ In so far, I may seem to favour Mr. Gladstone’s move; and I think I do rejoice _that it has been made_. Probably those are right who say, ‘Henceforth it becomes impossible to go back into the old groove.’ I do not believe that a Parliament elected on new lines will endure it.
“But neither would the Democratic Parliament in any case have endured it. A new civil war against Ireland seems morally impossible. Therefore Mr. Gladstone is _ruining_ a measure which might have been good, by his preposterous dealing with it. Lord Hartington said (as indeed did John Bright) the very truth, that the Liberal Party cannot so disown its own traditions, and its wisest principles, as to allow an _individual_, however justly honoured, to concoct _secretly from his old and trusted comrades_, a vast, complicated, and far-reaching settlement and make himself sole initiator of it (as _I_ have kept saying, reduce Parliament to a _machine for saying only Yes and No_)…. It is a vile degradation of Parliament. But that is only a small part of the infinite blunder. He pretends that everything has been tried and has failed, _except_ what he now proposes…. In 1880 no one forced him to bring in an Irish measure: he chose to do it, _and did it in the worst possible way,_ by treating the Irish members as ENEMIES, and refusing to consult them. [The Scotch members have _never_ been so treated on Scotch questions.]
“Down to last September Mr. Gladstone declared that the Irish members were men, who, by a conspiracy of _rapine_, were seeking to _dismember_ the empire. He carried ‘(?)’ against Ireland during his unparalleled supremacy, acts of despotism unequalled in this country, and that, though they _had no tendency to lessen crime_; and he joined them with _imprisonment against Mr. Parnell_. Only his monstrous incompetency to see right and wrong, made his well-intentioned measure all but fruitless. Peel and Wellington did mischief, long since deplored, in teaching the Irish that England cared nothing for justice, but very much indeed for the danger of a new civil war; but now Mr. Gladstone has been teaching them still more effectually. In September last he denounced Parnell and his friends as bent on dismembering the empire, deplored the danger of consulting them, begged for votes to strengthen him _against_ them; but as soon as the country, from various and very just discontent with his WARLIKE POLICY, and his utter neglect of our moral needs, showed in many of the boroughs their deep dissatisfaction, and he found Mr. Parnell _twice as strong_ as in the Old Parliament … he gave notice that he was ready to capitulate to Mr. Parnell. And he _did_ virtually capitulate; Mr. Parnell _understood_ him, and defeated Lord Salisbury, and Mr. Gladstone in accepting the power _to which Mr. Parnell invited him,_ insulted all his trusting comrades by keeping them in total ignorance of his scheme, while he concocted it by consultation with the very men whom just before he had _maligned_ as conspiring to _break up_ the empire.
“Such conduct from a Tory minister sounds to me more extreme than anything I ever read of in English history; and from a pretended _Liberal_ leader would have seemed incredible, if predicted. I suppose he was _predestined (vir fatalis)_ to break up his Party.
“I shall indeed rejoice and praise God if Mr. Gladstone’s wonderful folly do_ break down this … _system of legislation._–There’s a long yarn for you!!
“Ever your affectionate
“F. W. Newman.”
In the next letter, in November of the same year, Newman complains of temporary paralysis in his left-hand fingers and stiffness in that arm “as though it had a muscular twist.”
The actual putting on of an overcoat now becomes no slight undertaking, and he finds that reading now tires his eyes much more than does writing. He touches on the Burmese war, “which seems likely to be even worse than the Egyptian and Sudanese iniquity in its results to us.” And he adds, “We have now without any just cause of war, or even the pretence of any, invaded this province, which is subject and tributary to China, and lawlessly act the marauder upon it, claiming it as ours, and treating the patriots who oppose us as rebels and robbers. The Emperor of China now finds our frontier, if we succeed, pushed up to his own, and, whenever convenient to him, he can send in his armies against us, especially if India were to revolt.”
In October, 1886, matters in Bulgaria were at their highest tide. At last, after all her efforts, since 1356, at independence from the hated power of Greece, when “Almost” she and Servia were “persuaded” to form a great Slavonic State together, she seemed near attainment of her constantly prolonged efforts.
In 1872 the Bulgarian Church was again able to break her fetters, which she abhorred, which bound her to Greece. Then, in 1876, the atrocities committed by the Turkish inhabitants of Bulgaria took place. The Porte, when besought by the Constantinople Conference to make concessions, refused point-blank. Then Russia stepped in and declared war, and proposed themselves to make a Bulgarian State. England and Austria promptly refused to lend themselves to this scheme, and a Berlin Congress was summoned. The Berlin Treaty in 1878 arranged the limits and administrative autonomy of this State, and the Bulgarians chose Prince Alexander of Battenberg, cousin of the Grand Duke of Hesse, and he became in 1879 Alexander I of Bulgaria. Eventually the recognition of him by the Porte as Governor- General of Eastern Roumelia followed. In 1886 Russia made herself felt unexpectedly. Alexander was kidnapped by order of the Czar and carried to Russia.
The upshot of it all was that, though he returned to Bulgaria, yet he felt it was in vain to struggle against Russian animosities, and so abdicated.
The letter following shows Newman to be in failing health and under doctor’s treatment:–
“Weston-super-Mare,
“_7th October,_ 1886.
“My dear Anna,
“… My brief London visit which ought to have come off is forbidden positively, and I doubt not wisely, by medical command, _not_ because I am ill, _but_ because I had formidable threatening of illness, like a black cloud which after all does not come down. The threat consisted in my left hand losing all sense and power. This is now the sixth day. On the third I regained power to button, though clumsily, and to use my fork. Of course I am ordered to use my _brain_ as little as possible, and in future to change my habits. I must leave off all letters and other writing much earlier in the evening. But frequent short walks I hold salutary to my brain; and my feet have not failed me.
“… You ask what I think of the Bulgarian outrage…. In the present instance the one thing primarily to be desired, and eminently difficult to attain, was cohesion of the little Powers. As of old, Sparta and Athens could not coalesce, and therefore after weakening one another they ill- resisted Philip, and were overpowered by Alexander armed from Macedonia and Thrace, and under-propt by gold from Asia; so now the little States– Servia, Bulgaria, Roumania, Greece–each envied the other, perhaps was ready for hostility, but all looked up to Russia with more than fear.
“But this atrocious kidnapping of a reigning Prince has given just _the external compression which was wanted_ to make the little States desire union, and the greater Powers to think that such union is for European benefit. Not only has it reconciled Servia and Bulgaria, late in actual war, but it has elicited public outcry in Roumania for federation with these two States. Whether Greece can lay aside her jealous enmity against Bulgaria is not yet clear. Her ambition is to acquire Macedonia and Constantinople … perhaps … Albania.
“… To me it seems a wonder that the Greek statesmen do not see that Constantinople is too critical a spot for the European Powers to yield up to any secondary State. If it is to be under European protection, Greece would find her power in Constantinople merely nominal….
“The brutality of the Czar not only drives the little Powers to desire union, but makes the great Powers ashamed of it, and it seems, though reluctantly, they will oppose him.
“_This is the first time that a Hungarian statesman has initiated European movement._ If in Europe they are forced to displease Russia, so much the more will they wish to keep Russia in better humour by not thwarting her projects in Armenia, which projects I believe to be just, philanthropic, and necessary under the circumstances; since the inability of the Sultan to rescue the Armenians from marauders has been proved, and _no_ Power but Russia can do the needful work….
“It is to be feared that Germany cannot add any real strength to control Russia, while Russia knows that the insane vanity of French politicians is preparing a war of vengeance against Germany. Until the masses of the people have a practical constitutional plebiscite to _veto_ war _beforehand,_ it seems as though horrors which seem dead and obsolete must rise anew. _Perhaps_ this is the lesson which the populations all have to learn. The earliest great triumph which the old plebeians of Rome won was the constitutional principle that wars could not be made without previous sanction of the popular assembly. England, alas! has not yet even demanded this obvious and just veto. The men whose trade is war, whose honours and wealth can only be won by war, will make it by hook or by crook, while their fatal and immoral trade is honoured.
“Affectionately yours,
“F. W. Newman.”
In April, 1887, the Irish question was again to the fore, and part of the letter from which I quote shows clearly that Newman was in favour of some form of Local Government for Ireland, though not of the same kind as was being pressed forward by Mr. Parnell, who had urged on his countrymen agrarian agitation and boycotting as the screw which was to force the hand of the Home Government.
“My opinion is unchanged (1) that Grattan’s Parliament was foolishly, mischievously, and immorally subverted by English double-dealing; (2) that in one hundred years things are so changed in Ireland and _in Rome_ that we cannot go back to that crisis and heal old wounds by reinstating Grattan’s work without making new wounds; (3) I deeply blame Orangemen in Belfast as (apparently) bent on promoting animosity, and on convincing us that they will rather rush into civil war than endure a Parliament in Dublin supreme over all Ireland: but however much this may be suspected as the bluster and cunning of a minority in Ulster, to ignore it totally may be unjust as well as unwise. And besides, I think that Ireland needs the practice of Local Government, varying locally, before that of a Central Irish Parliament. This forbids my desiring a complete triumph to Mr. Parnell.
“You are aware that I have long desired Provincial Chambers for all three kingdoms, and can see nothing to forbid them now for Ireland if Mr. Gladstone were to take that side. If he did it would be carried against Mr. Parnell by a vast majority of votes. No mere political measure can cure famine and rackrent or insecure tenure; but if the agrarian evil be appeased, no hatred of England on the part of Irish leaders will suffice to make Ireland discontented. If Mr. Gladstone fixedly opposes, if he says ‘Honour compels me’–his Midlothian defence of the Egyptian war!–I should not the less say he had made a wrongful treaty. But ‘a fac is a fac’: _someone_ hitherto makes this settlement impossible. If now the Tories miscarry, apparently Gladstone will come in again, and not Oedipus can tell us whether he will dissolve Parliament.
“It is supposed that he will; and Mr. W. S. Caine, whose prediction in this matter I cannot underrate, warns Mr. Gladstone that to dissolve _again_ will bring on him redoubled failure,–an immense lessening of supporters.
“The new voters, at the last election, had not had time to learn a thousand things. After such a transformation of the constituencies, I not only _expect_–I _desire_–the break-up of the Liberal Party. Little by little they have adopted the Tory idea of ‘follow your leader’: never think for yourself. In the Parliament, in the Newspapers, in Arguments of Foreign War, at the Hustings, they treat it as ‘Treason to the Party’ not to do whatever the Premier says they _must_ do, or he will resign and wreck the party…. I see only one sunbeam through the clouds ever since the fatal Egyptian war; and that is the recent Peace-Union of _Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy_. I look on it as the inauguration of the future European Confederacy which is to forbid European wars, and become a forcible mediator. Under its shelter Roumania, Servia, and Bulgaria seem likely to consolidate a union of defence; and as soon as all the Powers understand that the Triple Alliance is based on permanent interests, the Alliance will not need to keep their armaments on foot; to _train_ them, as the generations grow up, will suffice. The royalties everywhere will struggle for actual armies: the burdened peoples will murmur.
“Meanwhile we need long patience, I suppose, while Irish rent wastes to smaller and smaller worth; and one new election will suddenly precipitate the struggle. _I_ do not fear that any Irish success will make Irishmen desire the burden of undertaking their own military and naval defence.
“Affectionately yours,
“F. W. Newman.”
* * * * *
As regards Newman’s opinions on one of the national questions which so closely concern us to-day–the Drink Traffic–they are very clearly and definitely stated in an article he wrote in the year 1877, and which appeared in _Fraser’s Magazine, in re_ Sir Wilfrid Lawson’s Bill.
Here again decentralization was the key-note, as he firmly believed, of the remedy.
“The palace-like jails which now disgrace our civilization, and cause expenses so vast, are chiefly the fruit of this pernicious trade…. What shadow of reason is there for doubting that such sales as are necessary… will be far more sagaciously managed by a Local Board which the ratepayers elect _for this sole purpose_, than either by magistrates… or by an _irresponsible_ and _multitudinous_ Committee of Parliament? Finally, a Board elected for this one duty is immeasurably better than the Town Councils, who are distracted by an immensity of other business….
“Such a Board should have full power to frame its own restrictions, so as to prevent the fraud of wine merchants or chemists degenerating into spirit shops….
“To secure sufficient responsibility, no Board should be numerous: _five_ or _seven_ persons may be a full maximum, and no Board should have a vast constituency. Therefore our greatest towns ought to be divided into areas with suitable numbers, and have Boards separately independent. With a few such precautions, the system of elective Licensing Boards, which can impose despotically their own conditions on the licences, but without power to bind their successors in the next year, appears to be a complete solution of the problem….”
He adds, that to Sir Wilfrid Lawson “is due more largely than to any other public man the arousing of the nation” in the matter of the Drink Traffic, “To him our thanks and our honour will be equally paid, though the name of another mover be on the victorious Bill”–whatever it may be.
“Noble efforts for a good cause are never thrown away, are never ineffectual, even when the success does not come in the exact form for which its champion was contending. It may hereafter be said: ‘Other men sowed–we reap the fruit of their labours.'”
I quote now from the letter to Anna Swanwick, in which he refers to this question in 1887:–
“Unless at a very early day the causes of Un-Employ be removed, we must calculate on frightful disorder. Evidently two measures are indispensable.
“1. To stop our land from going out of cultivation.
“2. To stop the demoralizing waste of 135 millions per annum on pernicious drink.
“Only a most stringent change of law, perhaps very difficult to pass, can effect the _former_ and when passed, the good effect cannot be instantaneous. The _second_ topic has been before the nation for thirty- four years; could be passed, if there were a _will_ in _either_ ministry, in a single fortnight, and when passed, the benefit would be sensible in a single year. Yet these topics are indefinitely postponed. The Tories do not even talk of them. _Some_ ‘Liberals’ round Mr. Gladstone are eager for the stopping of Drink Bars, but the eloquent leader _talks_ (in general) rightly, but never _acts_.
“Alas! He showed his heart in bringing a Bill to enact that every Railway Train should have (at least?) one travelling carriage with a Drink Bar. When it is told, people will not believe it.”
The final letter from Francis Newman to Anna Swanwick, from the collection so kindly lent me by Miss Bruce, is dated 17th April, 1897, “15 Arundel Crescent, Weston-super-Mare.”
It is not written by himself. By that time he was too feeble to be able to write, and of course it was only a few months before his death. This letter was written in response to one from Anna Swanwick. To me, I must frankly own, it breathes of the past tragedy, of those doubts and fears by which Newman’s religious life had been beset. Even now, notwithstanding his statements to his two lifelong friends, Martineau and Anna Swanwick, that he wished it to be known that he died in the Christian faith, the uncertainty by which, according to the following letter, he was very evidently governed as regards the question of immortality, suggests a submissive mind indeed, but one devoid of the splendid force of conviction as regards his faith in “the life of the world to come.”
Anna Swanwick always declared, we are told, that his was a “deeply religious nature,” yet throughout the greater part of his life he was unable to take hold of the dogmas of Holy Scriptures. He was always trying to make a “new” religion, compounded of all the best parts of the faiths professed in various parts of the world. Yet even were this done it might interest, but could never become, like the Christian Religion, once for all delivered–a faith to be _sure_ of, a faith Divinely inspired, not man-made.
“My dear Friend,
“I have read your letter this morning with deep interest and thanks. I do not intend to oppose it at all, but to add what it now seems to need. First, that I have always dreaded to involve another mind in my own doubts and uncertainties; only when I saw death not far off I thought it cowardly towards one who has shown me so much love to leave you ignorant of my last creed. For this reason alone did I send you my inability to maintain popular immortality.
“Next, it is not amiss to let you know the talk which passed between me and the Rev. James Taylor–Martineau’s co-partner. He asked me my own belief concerning known immortality, and I replied that the Most High never asked my consent for bringing me into this world, yet I thanked Him for it, and tried to glorify Him. In like manner He never asked my leave to put me after my death in this world into any new world, and if He thought fit to do it I am not likely to murmur at His will. But not knowing His will, nor what power of resistance He allows me, I do not attempt to foresee the future. I seem to remember J. J. Taylor’s remark, that he thought I went as far as anyone could be expected to go. And now, my dear Anna, I still wait to know how far I am straying from the man whom you and I are expecting something from–Dr. Martineau.
“Accept this kind remark, and be sure that I can use, and do use, concerning you, what a certain Psalmist says of the Most High: ‘I will praise Him as long as I have any power to praise in my soul.’
“Yours while I exist
“(You will not ask more of my weakness),
“F. W. Newman.”
One wonders–but that wonder remains unsatisfied–what “that something” was which he and Anna Swanwick were then “expecting” from Martineau. Probably it was some statement as regards religion which Newman longed for from the man who had been permitted to help him now in his old age (when he distrusted more and more his own old judgments and former convictions) once more on to the old paths, led by that “kindly Light amid the encircling gloom,” which now was fast closing in upon him.
CHAPTER XI
THE STORY OF TWO PATRIOTS
England possesses, as a rule, a memory of decidedly insular proportions and proclivities. On the tablets of our country’s memory are chalked up many names which have figured in the history of her own concerns, or at any rate in concerns with which she has some connection. Perhaps it will be said that this is inevitable. Perhaps it will be said that this way Patriotism lies. Perhaps it will be said that our interests as English citizens and citizenesses are bound to be local, or we could not impress the seal of our empire upon other nations’ memories.
And if it _is_ said, it is no doubt in great measure true. It is inevitable that we remember, in sharp unblurred outlines, the names and deeds of our own great men. It is this way that the soil of Patriotism is kept well manured for fresh crops of doughty deeds. We _are_ bound to impress our individuality, as a nation, upon other countries; for if we did not, we could never exist for any length of time as an empire at all.
But when all this is owned up to, there still remains another great necessity which can never with safety be disregarded. And this is the cultivation of our–so to speak–_foreign_ memory. We cannot afford to pamper our insularity. It is true it must exist, but it is equally true that English interests can never be–at least, _ought_ never to be–the sum total of our mental investments. Patriotism is a fine thing. It is an eminently inspiring thing. But it is also a thing that needs to take walks abroad to keep itself in good mental health. There is a certain sort of cosmopolitanism without which no nation’s life can be complete–nay, without which it cannot go on at all.
It is the cosmopolitanism of recognizing greatness outside our own borders. The cosmopolitanism of owning that there are as good fish in foreign seas as ever there were in the English Channel. The cosmopolitanism of a human brotherhood, whether it hails from the Sandwich Islands, from France, from Finland, or from Hungary; which recognizes as a salient truth, big with vital issues, that, after all is said and done, it is not the soil which matters, but the man whose feet are upon it now, at this present day, though by birth he may own natal allegiance to a far distant shore.
There are two names to-day which are practically forgotten by modern England. Yet it is only half a century ago that the men who owned them were making a gallant stir for patriotism’s sake.
How many Englishmen to-day remember the story of Kossuth and Pulszky? Yet fifty years ago their names sounded loudly enough in the political arena. Fifty years ago they had struck the drum of fame with a boom which reverberated through many a European country.
Yet here is a curious instance of the uncertainty which attends a nation’s memory in regard to foreign heroes. Some quite unaccountable factor seems to rule their choice of whose achievements shall be nailed to the door of their memories, like British trophies of old, and which shall be completely forgotten. Garibaldi and Kossuth were patriots of the same decade–one of Italy, the other of Hungary. Yet to-day in England the “red shirt” of the Italian patriot still casts a flaming glow on the English memory, while the struggle of Kossuth for his country is almost dead to us, as far as our remembrance of it is concerned.
Nevertheless in the history of his country, what Kossuth achieved for her of independence and freedom was in no way less fine than Garibaldi’s exploits.
In Francis Newman’s _Reminiscences of Two Wars and Two Exiles_, the story of the Hungarian reformer and _patriot_ stands out clearly before us. He gives as his reason for writing it that when, in 1851, Kossuth and Pulszky, his brother agitator, came to England, he himself became their close friend. He says: “When … Kossuth and Pulszky quitted England in 1860, Pulszky told me they were glad to leave behind in _me_ one Englishman who knew all their secrets and could be trusted to expound them.” He goes on, however, to say that he was never able to be of so much service to them as Mr. Toulmin Smith, “a constitutional lawyer … and a zealot for Hungary.”
1848 was the year when the affairs of Hungary were at their most crucial point. For long the situation had been growing more and more strained between Austria and Hungary. Austria had been trying her hardest to force Hungary into entire subservience to herself–to force her to give up her separate individuality as a nation and become fused into the Austrian empire. But Hungary made a gallant stand against all these attempts which aimed at destroying her independence. She had always been a constitutional monarchy, with power of electing her own kings. Austria had always practically been considered to be a “foreigner” as far as Hungarian laws and offices were concerned.
The London Hungarian Committee in 1849 quoted Article X, by Leopold II, of the House of Hapsburg, in 1790, which definitely stated that “Hungary with her appanages is a free kingdom, and in regard to her whole legal form of government (including all the tribunals) independent; that is, entangled with no other kingdom or people, but having her own peculiar consistence and constitution; accordingly to be governed by her legitimately crowned king after her peculiar laws and customs.”
This statute, however, was no sooner made than fresh attempts were made to nullify it. Hungary’s needs, as a country, were many. Her taxation required alteration; her peasants had still feudal burdens to bear, instead of being freehold proprietors of land. Religious toleration was not enforced, and free trade was an unknown quantity, for Austria insisted on the produce of Hungary being sent only to her market. Fresh roads and bridges and agricultural improvements were imperatively necessary, but the need was passed by, by Austria.
To every nation, as to every individual, when the hour of worst need strikes, the hand of the man or woman who brings rescue is upon the latch of the door. In the present instance Kossuth was in readiness to redeem his country from the yoke of Austria.
In March, 1848, the Opposition in the Hungarian Diet, with Kossuth at their head, carried a vote “that the Constitution of Hungary could never be free from the machinations of the Austrian Cabinet until Constitutional Government was established in the foreign possessions of the Crown, so as to restore the legal status of the period at which the Diet freely conferred the royalty on the House of Hapsburg.” This vote paralysed the Austrian authorities…. The Hungarian Diet immediately claimed for itself also a responsible ministry.
Prompt measures were now taken by the Hungarians to restore the old status of the country, and laws were made which conferred upon the peasants freeholds of land and all other reforms for which they had for so long been agitating.
The London Hungarian Committee, to whose paper I have before referred, tells us that before the French Revolution had broken out this Bill had passed both Houses. “The Austrian Cabinet, seeing their overwhelming unanimity, felt that resistance was impossible”; consequently this Reform Bill of April, 1848, was considered by all Hungarian patriots as their Magna Charta.
Nevertheless it was their fate very shortly after to appreciate the truth of this hard fact, that it is one thing to make a Charter and another thing to keep it. Austria had many ways up her sleeve of breaking the spirit of the letter. First she saw to it that Hungary had no properly equipped home regiments for her defence, and next she dissolved the Hungarian Diet, and again tried to fuse Hungary into the Austrian Empire. Then at last the Hungarians determined at once, by force, to end the contemptible, practical joke which Austria was engaged in playing off upon their country. They gathered an army together, but their utmost efforts could only raise one not half the size of that of their opponents, and consequently the result of the battle was defeat for themselves. Later on, when Kossuth had managed to collect more arms and men, battles on a much larger scale were fought; and after the Austrians had been defeated more than a dozen times, the whole of their armies were driven ignominiously out of Hungary. It was after this series of victories that Kossuth was made his country’s governor, and the whole nation declared as one man that the House of Hapsburg had for ever forfeited any claim to the Crown.
It was now that, had England attempted mediation for Hungary (according to Francis Newman), “we should have saved Austria from the yoke of Russia, and have at least _put off_ the Crimean war,” because, when Russia had come to the assistance of Austria in her final difficulties with Hungary, after she had been driven out of that country, “if England and France had not fought it, nothing short of an equivalent war must have been fought against Russia by other Powers … because the security of _all Europe_ is endangered by the virtual vassalage of Austria to Russia… for Austria is now so abhorred in Hungary that she cannot keep her conquest except by Russian aid.” [Footnote: _Reminiscences of Two Wars and Two Exiles._]
In 1848 Kossuth’s envoy, Pulszky, was sent to England, and, quite ignorant of the wheels within wheels which hampered the political movements of Lord Palmerston, was amazed that he himself found a repulse awaiting him at the English Minister’s hands. Lord Palmerston asserted that the rights or wrongs of Hungary were practically a dead letter to England, who had never thought of that country as existing apart from Austria. He considered “a strong Austria was a European necessity”; but notwithstanding all he said then and later, the impression made itself felt on men’s minds that there was a “power behind the throne” in all his speeches, and none knew what that hidden power was. To-day we all know that it was the foreign counsellorhood of Baron Stockmar, who advised Prince Albert in those days. As Newman says: “It is now open to believe that Stockmar and his Austrian policy … sometimes drove Palmerston to despair, and our diplomacy into heartlessness.”
[Illustration: LOUIS KOSSUTH]
This elucidation of the whole puzzle throws fresh light on that attitude of Lord Palmerston which so completely mystified Kossuth.
“I cannot understand,” he said, “what is the policy of Palmerston’s _heart_. He talks one way, yet acts another way–always against the interests and just rights of Hungary.”
Kossuth’s next step was to take refuge in Turkey, and here he at once set to work to learn the language, and succeeded so well that he wrote a grammar, which was afterwards used in the Turkish schools. It was said to have been due to Lord Palmerston, by the way, that the Sultan refused to give him up to Austria and Russia. But at any rate the Sultan seemed to owe the decision which guided this refusal in large measure to his own loyalty to those who had sought shelter with him during civil war. At any rate, Kossuth reported that he certainly said, “I will accept war rather than give up the Hungarian fugitives.” Eventually an American ship conveyed Kossuth out of Turkey, and he landed at Marseilles. Of course, by then the monarchy had been overthrown in France, and Louis Napoleon-with whom Kossuth was later on to be closely connected–was President.
In October, 1851, Kossuth crossed to England. Newman tells us that though “he was enthusiastically received by the whole nation,” yet that “he was slandered, feared, despised, and disliked by those esteemed highest and noblest in England.” But, at any rate, he was given a hearty welcome in America, for he did not stay long in England when he saw that those in authority did not warmly espouse his cause.
It is necessary here to remember that in 1851 Louis Napoleon had stepped on to the top of the Republic, whom he had previously served as its President, and had made himself Emperor of the French. It is necessary also to remember that there was a very general sense of alarm throughout England as to his plans regarding an invasion. He was thought to be collecting a fleet destined to attack us. But, later, it was proved that we had been exciting and disturbing ourselves quite unnecessarily. Louis Napoleon wanted something of us, it is true. But that something was alliance.
By this time Kossuth was back in England. One day, Francis Newman says, “Kossuth called suddenly on me with an English Blue-book in his hand, and abruptly said: ‘We foreigners look to you to explain your own Blue-books. Please to tell me what does this strange sentence mean?’ I read carefully these words from the despatches of the Western Powers to the admirals of their fleets in Constantinople: c You must clearly understand that you are not sent to fight against the Emperor of Russia, but to save the Sultan from _religious enthusiasm and fatal auxiliaries_’! He pointed out these last words…. ‘_Religious enthusiasm_ is the diplomatic phrase for Turkish patriotism; _fatal auxiliaries_ mean Hungarians…. Because Austria dreads lest exiled Hungarians fight in the Turkish ranks, and the object of the Western Powers is to please Austria and not to aid Turkey…. They are angry with the Turks for defending themselves against Russia.'” [Footnote: Reminiscences of Two Wars and Two Exiles.]
[Illustration: This certificate is dated the year after Kossuth’s first visit to England, and is in possession of Edward G. Sieveking, Esq. of the firm of Sieveking, Podmore, and Wright, Gracechurch Street, E.C.]
In 1848-9 the Whigs and Tories in England mistook the whole meaning of the disturbances which were going forward abroad. Macaulay (whom Newman quotes) distinctly asserts that in Hungary and Italy “kings were fighting in the cause of civilization, and nationalities were rising to destroy it in the cause of anarchy.”
Comment on this is, of course, quite needless when one remembers how misinformed were the English ministers as to the nature of the struggle for liberty which was then going forward in both countries, and how treacherously and cruelly the people had been treated by those in authority over them: and what efforts had been made constantly against their rights as citizens. In 1854 Kossuth was again doing his best to rouse interest on behalf of his country in England. He called on Newman to enquire what would be the best and quickest way of collecting subscriptions. He wanted for immediate national use L5000. Newman referred him to a printer who “was a Zealot for Hungary,” and who would supply him with the names of the richest men who had “spoken vigorously for Hungary.”
Kossuth proceeded to write out a circular to be sent to these Englishmen, asking for subscriptions. A little later Newman found out that the result of this fishing in English waters was L400, and he had wanted L5000 to enable him to carry out his projects for Hungary!
The following letter from Francis Newman to Professor Martineau (about whose friendship with him I shall have more to say later) is dated November, 1854, and concerns his opinions _in re_ the Crimean War:–
“As to the war, while it is always thought rash to have any strong military convictions, I have always believed that if they would go straight to Sebastopol early in the season they would take it with little difficulty. We have been juggled partly by Austria, partly by the too great age of our military men, partly by clashing counsels of allies. The fortification of Gallipoli I regarded as stupid infatuation: our old military men said it was necessary for _safety!_ We lost all our time while Russia had her hands full on the Danube, we let in Austria to hinder the Turks pursuing the retreat, we delayed ten weeks longer to make preparation, and landed, leaving all our preparations behind. This _delay_ has been the mischief…. The climate is now my fear, not the enemy. But I look on all this as a part of the providential or fatal necessity which determines that war shall not be decided by regular armies. If we _will_ do things in a ‘slow and sure’ way, Russia will beat us, for she cares nothing for the lives of her men; to us it is agony. But to yield is to make her omnipotent. I expect, therefore, that the harder we fight, and the poorer our success, the more will Austria show Russian sympathies, and the more will the Western Powers be forced to call up Poland and Hungary…. I suppose nothing but severe suffering and vain effort will reconcile Louis Napoleon or the English aristocracy to the revolution in Europe, which alone can permanently cripple Russia.
“Ever yours affectionately,
“F. W. Newman.”
And in August, 1855, he wrote again:–
“I do not think you see truly the _treachery_ of our Government (I cannot use a weaker word), nor know truly what Kossuth has always demanded. To my first question, ‘Do you expect us to drive Austria into hostility?’ he replied (probably in November, 1853), ‘Certainly not; but I claim that you shall not _try to hinder_ our fighting our just and necessary battle against Austria.’ This is the turning point. We did try to hinder it, hoping thereby to seduce Austria to our side. To whisper to Austria the words ‘H. P. I.’ would not have been to stir up those countries to insurrection, but to _compel Austria not to threaten Turkey with her armies_. Our Government encouraged her in it, and aided her to occupy the Principalities, forcing the Sultan to take pliable Ministers…. We reap the bitter fruit, as Kossuth from the beginning told us we should. I, however, still hope that we shall regain a morally right position, and that if we fare the worse Hungary may be the better; for _then_ Austria might have been neutral, now she will be our enemy.”
Kossuth suffered greatly in his political aims and endeavours from lack of funds. Indeed, from his first journey to England until he finally gave up coming over here, he was terribly hampered by want of money. Newman, too, was out of pocket owing to his efforts to push forward the Hungarian cause. I have before me now a letter from Kossuth written in January, 1854, from 21 Alpha Road, Regent’s Park, to E. Sieveking and Son, members of my family, who were keenly interested in Hungarian politics, and who transacted many business arrangements for Kossuth from time to time while he was in England. The letter is on behalf of a friend of his, a Mr. Ernest Poenisch, and is written in German:–
“Honoured Sir,
“Would you not do me the kindness to give a favourable reference about the honourability [_sic_] of Mr. Ernest G. Poenisch if anyone should happen to make enquiries of you about him?
“Mr. Ernest Poenisch is a merchant in the city, a German by birth, and was a merchant of importance, and as he often has commercial business of importance to look after for me, you will be doing to me myself, a kindness if you would give him a good reference in a general way, should opportunity occur.
“Renewing my request to you, I sign myself, “Respectfully yours,
“L. Kossuth.
“To E. Sieveking and Son.”
In June, 1855, Francis Newman writes to Dr. Martineau, in answer to a letter from him:–
“I do not write in support of the oppressed nations _because_ ‘I have confidence in the stability and morality of a continental democracy,’ but because the _foreign_ kings who now trample nations down _neither have nor pretend to have_ any right but that of armies; it is a pure avowed robber- rule, essentially in morals, and all will extol the nations as patriotic whenever they throw it off. … Certainly I maintain that Hungary and Poland are nations; so in fact is Italy: but Austria is only a Court and Army, not a nation. We have had public relations with Hungary as a nation; we violated our duty to Hungary in 1848-9; and complain we are still allowing Austria to get the benefit of our wrong. So also to Poland, I feel we have grossly neglected our duty, and still neglect it…. We know that Hungary (Poland, Italy) is in the right; but though called on to say so, we will not say it; nor even mediate, _for_ it will lead to republicanism. Again, I call it immoral to argue: ‘We know that Austria is giving Turkey just cause of war; but we must _not allow_ the Sultan to resent it by declaring war; _for_ it will give the nationalities an opportunity of throwing off the Austrian yoke.’… Then, my dear friend, do you forget that I approved of the _French_, and disapproved of the _Austrian_ alliance?… Not to ally with Louis Napoleon is not to join him _against the French nation_; while to ally with Francis Joseph was to join him _against the French nation_, which his armies are trampling down. Again, we did not catch Louis Napoleon engaged in a scheme with Nicholas (Emperor of Russia) to dismember Turkey, and bribe Louis Napoleon to join us by the promise or hint that he should still get his slice of Turkey. We _have_ done this to Austria, and have used our severe pressure on the Turkish Government to get Austria admitted into the Principalities…. I fear this summer will be as deadly to our army as the winter was; my only comfort will be, that I shall make sure that Austria will the clearer show her true colours.
“Hoping you are all well, I am,
“Ever yours affectionately,
“F. W. Newman.”
[Illustration: FACSIMILE OF LETTER FROM KOSSUTH TO MESSRS. SIEVEKING JANUARY, 1854]
“Hungary and Poland are nations; so in fact is Italy: but Austria is only a Court and Army, not a nation.” Here is practically the gist of the whole matter, as far as Francis Newman is concerned. Throughout all his writings one comes again and again upon this note. “The People! The People!” is his ever-recurring thought. What are “the People” suffering; what are _their_ needs, their wrongs which call for justice? The People is the living nation; the Court and the Army may be inevitable adjuncts of a nation’s being, as things at present are constituted; but they are artificial adjuncts; the People are the very life essence of the Nation, its real motive power. Let their voice be heard, and the soul of empire at once springs into being.
In the next letter from Newman to Martineau, 9th June, 1856, from which I shall quote, it is shown that our Colonial Office was enraged against Kossuth because he had “mischievously _hindered_ the Austrian Government from getting troops to put down Italian insurrection.” Newman goes on to show how the treachery of Austria in her dealing with other nations was a potent fact, and he adds, “Hungary was bound” (according to Kossuth’s views) “to assist Austria against foreign attack, and therefore against the _King of Sardinia_; but in the interval, before this could come to any practical result, the intrigues of the Austrian Court with the Serbs were brought to light; Austrian officers with the Emperor-King’s commission in their pockets were made prisoners from among the Serb ranks, and the internal danger of Hungary, as well as the treachery of the Court, made it simply impossible to carry out, or wish to carry out, the Protocol. But Kossuth was still the King’s Minister, and could not say this openly. Unless he would have taken the first step to civil war, he was bound to throw a thin veil over it in public speech and action. The measure which he then promoted was … that no Hungarian soldier should leave the country until the internal rebellion was thoroughly subdued. That no Hungarian regiments should fight against Italians until the Italians had had from Austria the offer of national institutions and freedom under the Austrian Crown, putting them on a par with the Hungarians.”
Nothing could have been fairer than these conditions, and this was very shortly recognized when it became known that Latour and the Court were employing all their energies for long after this date in stirring up the Serb rebellion. Yet they were shameless enough to complain of Kossuth having incited the Hungarians to revolt. Writing the next day to Dr. Martineau, Newman openly avows his belief that “every nation in the world is grasping and unjust in its foreign policy in exact proportion to its power, _England not being at all an exception_.” The italics are my own. Have we not proof positive of this before our very eyes to-day? We cannot look at India and say “no,” for by our charter of 1833 we bound ourselves over to hold India only until the education, which we had made possible for them, should enable the Indians to take a share in the government of their own country. But when we look at the India of to-day, we cannot but plead guilty to not having kept that charter honestly before our eyes. There is but _one_ office to which natives are admitted on equal terms with Englishmen to-day!
To go back to the letter:–
“England has no great European army, and cannot _covet_ and subdue any portion of the European continent. That is no great credit; but in Asia,