A SPIRITUAL HISTORY OF - ENGLAND.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR :] SIR,—Your review of my "History of English Patriotism" is so -friendly, and inspired. with such an obvious desire to .be fair, that I am loath to cavil at any part of it. Perhaps, however, you will permit me to point out one or two instances in which your criticisms, though interesting and suggestive in themselves, seem to bear very little relation to any remarks of pine. " He belauds the acts of Toryism in war," says your critic, "and, instead of criticizing its domestic inaction, abuses .Liberalism . . ." Now, not only have I characterized the Tory premiers—Portland, Perceval, and Liverpool—as men who might well he supposed capable of ruining any nation, and of Pitt's war policy as marked by "failure, and incom. petence worse than failure," _ but I have taken occasion to denounce, in the sttongest terms, the domestic policy of Eldonian Toryism.
Again, I did not "dismiss the agitation against Governor Eyre with a sneer about sympathy with the murderers of Englishwomen." It is obvious, from the context, that the remark in question had reference to Cawnpore, and not to, Jamaica. Nor am I aware that I ever spoke of Beech,. Bentham, and, of all people, Hobbes, as "spiritual fathers of Whiggism." But perhaps this is an obiter dictum of your critic, and refers to no opinion of mine. At least I hope so- Nor did I ever refer to the conversations in " Diana of the Crossways " as typical of Victorian or any other aristocrats, I merely said that the atmosphere of Diana's dinner-parties is as strange to our own dining-rooms as that of Plato's Symposium. In the days of Bernal Osborne and " Dizzy " such an atmosphere was at least conceivable. No one ever imagined that it was typical. Nor have I devoted ten pages to Newman for every one given to Dr- Johnson. The proportion of space allotted, I find, ifs almost exactly two to one. But let this pass as a very mild exercise of critical license. What I should really like to impress. upon my critic or his readers is that I never even dreamed of gauging the importance of a character by a count of pages, as Dionysus weighs lines in the "Frogs." The fact that the doctor's patriotism was a very hearty, straightfor- ward affair and that of the cardinal as complex and subtle as his own mind compelled me to devote a greater amount of space to the elucidation of the latter. This, at least, appears to me simple. Nor is it quite fair to talk of my book as if it were a violent party pamphlet. If it were not that I am afraid of infringing overmuch upon your valuable space, 1 could quote many a passage to the effect of the following : "The Whig bias, which has prevailed so largely among the historians of the nineteenth century, has, in recent years, been opposed by a. Tory reaction little less mischievous " ; or this : "To talk of the Tories as if they set up a higher or more patriotic ideal of statesmanship than the Whigs is not less absurd." This hardly bears out your critic's remark, "To put it bluntly, he bates a Whig like the very devil." But then your critic does put things so very bluntly. I hope he will forgive me fou- these few, and almost random, corrections on points of fact.. For his opinions, the only fault I have to find with them is that they are too mercifuL I am flattered beyond measure at his discovery that I am of the lineage of Carlyle and his fear I may develop into another Macaulay. The idea of Carlyle's mantle falling upon another Macaulay is too inspiriting for- comment I Finally, your critic censures me for getting my ideas from books. May I take a noble revenge and assure him that this is a fault from which his own review is quite. conspicuously free.—I am, Sir, &c.,
EBME WINGFIELD-STRATFORD. 6 Portman Square, W.
[Though we are afraid our readers are inclined to be bored' by reviews of reviews, we do not like to refuse hir. Wingfield- Stratford's spirited letter. We shall not, however, attempt to justify our reviewer, though on many points it would not be difficult. We remember the Italian saying, "If this con- troversy continues it will become a serpent."—ED. Spectator.)
Previous page
