But I must stop somewhere.
[Sidenote: _Cannes March 29, 1882_]
If there are judges and juries in Britain, Macmillan would expose himself to fine and imprisonment by {149} printing what I write to you.
You will see in a moment, I am sure, why it could never be.
It would be an offence to the author, because there is no allowance of the large measure of praise and even of admiration due to him--nothing but the Catalogue of objections suggested to me by the belief that I was writing to a too fervent admirer of the book. Without my signature it would be a stab in the dark; and with my name it would be insufferably pretentious, uncalled-for, and unfair. And I, who make a profession of knowing about Conclaves and the like, should be bound to visit more amply, if not more severely, the strangely inadequate and pointless narrative of the election of Chigi. Few things are more curious and dramatic than the Conclaves, and this one is particularly well known.
Besides, Fraser is sure to be very hostile, both in detail and in respect of the scope and spirit of the work. He is sure to quarrel with Jesuit and Cardinal, and to say much of what I have said in strict confidence. Please, dismiss the thought; and if you compliment anything, let it be the paper and handwriting.
That is a very kind question about Gardiner; and as I have at hand, here, the means of learning more without risk of indiscretion, I had better postpone my answer. If, as a rule, those pensions are granted to people almost dest.i.tute of means, the case could not well be admitted. He ought to be at the Record Office instead of the present Hardy. It is in Jessel"s gift, and he asked my advice, specially excluding clergymen, and thereby losing the two best men, Brewer and Stubbs. I suggested Freeman, Gardiner, and Bond. Freeman sent me word that he would not take it. Jessel told me he would appoint Bond--who is now the very good {150} and estimable, but gloomy successor of Panizzi--but that he had been told that Bond was a Catholic. He said that a Jew was not strong enough to appoint a Catholic Keeper of the Archives. Bond is a Broad Churchman, and the report arose only from my recommendation. Gardiner therefore remained; but it was resolved, under I know not what pressure, to keep the thing in the Hardy family.
Meantime, I think Gardiner succeeded Brewer in his professorship at King"s College--not, I imagine, remunerative, but still an obstacle.
Yes, I agree about Forbes, and rather think he is one of the men Simon speaks of, and defies the Sorbonne to meet--unless I am mixing up the two divines of that name.
Spinola wrote no book. He was a Franciscan bishop, Imperial Confessor at Vienna, and produced several schemes of union, on the part of Rome, which differ from other such by being definite and sincere. Leibniz, and the Calixtine school of Lutherans, were very near adopting his plan; but as he was an agent of pope and emperor when Louis XIV. was the enemy of both, Bossuet contrived to baffle him. What was known of these transactions down to our day is in Pichler"s work on Leibniz.
Much more has since come out in the "Correspondence of the Electress Sophia," and there is more to come, whenever the Madonna of the Future[175] is unveiled.
Of John Inglesant, let me say that it would be a very fair text to work on--how far the pagan, human virtues, coupled with qualities which are not, in a spiritual sense, virtues, such as courage, delicacy, good nature, veracity, pride, can accomplish the outward, visible {151} work of grace. But that is clearly not the author"s design.
If Gardiner"s paper is very hostile, and you then think it worth while to send my remarks to Mr. Shorthouse,[176] through his publisher or otherwise, that is a case governed by the saying of the younger Pompey.[177]
I liked what I saw of the Fox Memorials during a very short inspection; and yesterday, lunching at the parsonage at Mentone, I found the Life of Lowder. The accounts of Prince Leopold were distressing. Fancy my finding myself with two excellent clergymen, both ardent Gladstonians, and both wishing for the admission of Bradlaugh. Otherwise my journey was not altogether successful, as I got half a sunstroke, which you have already seen traces of in my letter.
[Sidenote: _Cannes April 27, 1882_]
The description you quote of Coleridge is not more inaccurate than epigram requires. I have just drawn up a list of recommended authors for my son, as being the company I should like him to keep, after me; and after some hesitation I included S. T. C. in the number. But he has to be balanced by sounder stuff.
Lecky only arrived two days ago, and is scarcely begun. But the beginning, and the account of Junius struck me as very far indeed ahead of all his former writings. There is a good deal of slovenly writing, and it is puerile to write modern history from printed books; but this is a wonderfully solid performance. You will not think it as amusing as Froude"s "Carlyle," when you come to it, but much more nutritious.
{152}
You depressed my spirits the other day by showing that the majority of 39 did not amount to quite so much as I, from a distance, had imagined.
And the Budget, though open to very little remark, does not do much to raise them. If I was not conscious of being the worst accountant yet discovered, I should say that there is a slip in one of the calculations of Savings Bank deposits.
Gardiner for some reason did not publish his article.... If Arthur Lyttelton, out of pure cussedness, wishes to put in the note you speak of, I would like to see what it is he says, starting from the materials buried in my letter.
[Sidenote: _Cannes May 3, 1882_]
Lecky"s merits stand undiminished by further acquaintance, but the deficiencies become more glaring. The character of Burke, though in my opinion very defective, seems to me the best I have read in the language.
The May _Fraser_ contains his article,[178] and I greatly fear that his judgment will be as critical as my own.
I wonder whether you have the _Temps_ or _Debats_ in Downing Street, and have read the speeches of Pasteur and Renan. I do not remember so interesting a reception, and what is serious is that the most powerful intellectual force in France has declared, virtually, for materialism.
[Sidenote: _Cannes May 5, 1882_]
We have nothing later than Tuesday"s speech, so that the lines are not traceable into the future, and I am still in a very anxious and doubting stage.
{153}
It is not apparent why Spencer occupies a position between earth and heaven. He looks like a warming pan. Not for a prince, for that is out of the question. For Dufferin?[179] But Dufferin, who is easy, dexterous, and popular, has not the sterling and transparent quality of Spencer himself. It may well be the basis of a vast change in the machinery for the government of Ireland; but that would require legislation for which there is no time. Perplexity No. 1.
Then one must conclude that the change comes from a.s.surances given by the moderate Irish members, that it would enable them to moderate the raging ones. But to ensure that, they must have a finger in the pie, and Russell or Shaw would have to have the offer of the Irish Office.
It seems clear, from the delay, that that is not to be; and one hears of Lefevre and Chamberlain.... Perplexity 2.
There is a look of uncertainty and want of clearness about the whole thing. Cowper resigns; after an interval, half a successor is appointed; then the suspects are released; then Forster resigns; and then, after another interval showing want of preparation, there is a new Secretary. This way of doing whatever is to be done suggests that the Ministry had not the foresight to antic.i.p.ate opinion, or strength to lead it. Dropping one colleague after another in their Irish course makes that course appear wanting in deliberation and design, and strengthens the notion that, under heavy pressure, they may be driven n.o.body knows where, like men who yield, not like men who lead. I presume that there is some evidence of ensured improvement, consequent upon concession. But one doubts that again, when {154} Forster resigns; and it seems that the change is in the ideas more than in the facts. As to any gain on Irish opinion from the grace of concession, I should not expect it, as so many suspects remain in custody. If so, then the advantage would be derived from the new position of the Irish leaders--a very doubtful policy. Then again, I don"t like the moment; immediately after Cairns"s stroke, and the untimely publication of his draft report.[180] I don"t like anything which looks like overtrumping, because it is not fit for such a Prime Minister to follow initiative, whether that of opponents, or of English or Irish opinion.
These misgivings occur to me although you know, if n.o.body else does, that I was not convinced by the argument in favour of coercion, and saw no evidence of greater demoralisation than was the direct effect of actual suffering. Since then there has been so much atrocity in Ireland, so much foreign influence, and so manifest a change for the worse in the conduct of the clergy, that I have grown reconciled to the strong hand. Even if full of sympathy with the spirit of the present policy, I cannot satisfy myself with the mode of its inception, and I shall not feel comfortable for some days, until the design grows clear.
To you, they will be intensely interesting, and I shall be very glad indeed to hear that confidence reigns in Downing Street.
POST OFFICE AND SUBMARINE TELEGRAPHS.
CANNES, 5.14, 8/5, 11.54, on the 8/5, 1882.
Do not let him lose confidence in himself.[181]
ACTON.
{155}
[Sidenote: _Cannes May 9, 1882_]
We have only vague reports in French newspapers, but I cannot wait for full accounts of the tragedy that touches us all so nearly, to give you my warm tribute of sympathy and sorrow. It is shocking to think of her, so worthy of happiness and so afflicted. You, I know, have, of all people, the most soothing hand for the most cruel wounds.
It must have been a dreadful blow in your own home, and at a distance one grows anxious about many things. I apprehend a violent burst of pa.s.sion in the country, with despair of healing such disease with lenient arts; and, if the tide turns, the change will be felt in Parliament, and will be used by men quite capable of seeing that Mr.
Gladstone"s statesmanship is confirmed by the very crime which will condemn it in common minds. a.s.suming that some of the Cabinet a.s.sent reluctantly to the heroic policy, and that the last few weeks have not added to his personal ascendency, I fear that they will either forsake him or urge him to forsake his own ideal lines. Thinking of this, of his strong affections, of the shadow on the hearth, I could not restrain my wish to send you my small vote of confidence.
For we heard at first that Spencer had instantly resigned.[182] I was ashamed to show myself, and whispered to my family how Nicholas, the bad emperor, faced a rebellious army. There is very different news to-day. I gather that Spencer remains, that Forster redeems many faults by offering to go back, that Parnell has made his choice between murder and conciliation, that the Opposition holds its hand, expecting Mr. Gladstone to turn against himself.
{156}
It seems to me that much ground must inevitably be lost, and that the true moral of this catastrophe can never be made visible to the average Englishman. Still I see great opportunities of recovery, and I know in what spirit I hope that he has had the strength to receive the blow aimed through Freddy Cavendish at himself.
I long so much to hear from you. If you can think, in sad days like these, of anything but the sorrow that is near you, do give an affectionate message from me to Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone, and send me, when you have a quiet moment, a line to Munich. I start almost immediately.