a i * " * I
'i : : . . > . . , i -i - -
Conservative *
her , and to hold out to her his gallant ,
protecting hand. "
Here is a graceful tribute he pays to
Wendell Phillips :
"I had often heard him deliver lec
tures , but I had never heard him make
a really great speech on one of his own
especial subjects until I went to attend
a meeting which was held to celebrate
the passing of that amendment to
the constitution which secured a man
against being precluded from the
right to vote because of the color of his
skin. I was a little late in getting to
the meeting , and the vast hall was al
ready packed with listeners ; I could
only get standing-room on a staircase ,
from which I could not see the platform
or any of the speakers. Presently a
powerful voice filled the hall , and I soon
became carried away by a flood of noble
eloquence , the like of which I had not
heard since some of the most splendid
efforts of Bright or Gladstone. I could
not help whispering to my wife , who
was with me , "Why , this man is a
greater speaker than Wendell Phillips. "
It was , in fact , Wendell Phillips him
self , whom I had not before that time
had a chance of hearing at his very best.
I have always thought it selfishly
thought it , perhaps a pity that fortune
did not place Phillips in the house of
commons. How he would have sus
tained the cause of Gladstone , and ri
valed the eloquence of Bright , and out-
satirized the satire of Disraeli , and
answered with pitiless sarcasm the sar
casms of Robert Low ! "
An interesting conversation with the
distinguished play wright and actor , Dion
Boucicault , as to the standards of stage
propriety in different generations , is
thus recorded :
"I remember once talking to Bouci
cault one day , when I had the pleasure
of dining with him at his hotel in Bos
ton , Mass. He was giving me some in
teresting recollections of his early exper
iences as an actor , and he raised a ques
tion as to the different standards of
theatrical propriety which different gen
erations choose to set up. In his
younger days , he said , no English comic
actress , no English ballot girl , would
consent to appear upon the stage for a
in the semitransparent
single moment scanty -
parent drapery which , in later days , is
seen every night in every pantomime and
opera bouffe. Such an exhibition , be
went on to say , with some emphasis ,
would have been considered absolutely
indecent and intolerable in those days ,
while , at the time of our conversation ,
neither the performers nor the public
felt in any degree shocked by it. So
much for the superiority of the decent
past over the indecent present. But ,
then , he had a good deal to say on the
other side of the question ; in his early
days an actress , even of the best class ,
would think nothing of speaking a pas-
sage , or many passages , in some comedy
containing words and phrases , jests and
allusions , winch the lowest class of ac-
Lross would not utter now in the low
est order of theatre , and which the
audience would not listen to if she were
to attempt to utter them. Which time ,
then , has the advantage of decorum ? Is
it better to stick to modest clothing and
disregard modesty of language , or to bo
reckless about drapery and careful about
words ? "
In his chapter on Henry Ward
Beecher , he says :
"I met Beecher during my first visit
to America , and I heard him preach in
the temple of his ministrations , the Ply
mouth church in Brooklyn. Beecher's
style as a preacher was more like that
of the pulpit orators who flourished a
century or two ago than like the style of
our own more refined or more conven
tional days. Ho never thought it be
neath himself or his calling to say an
amusing thing in one of his sermons if
the thought came up appropriately in
his mind. He had a way when he en
tered his church on Sunday of taking up
any letters which might be addressed to
him there ; and he sometimes opened one
of these and read it out to the congrega
tion , and made it a text on which to
hang a discourse. One day he opened
such a letter and found that it contained
the single word 'Fool. ' He mentioned
the fact to his congregation , and then
quietly added : 'Now I have known
many an instance of a man writing a
letter and forgetting to sign his name ;
but this is the only instance I have ever
known of a man signing his name and
forgetting to write the letter. ' "
Mr. McCarthy informs us that Bright
and Disraeli , when they met in the
house of commons , were on very
friendly terms. Disraeli had as high an
opinion of Bright's eloquence as any of
Bright's companions could possibly have
had :
"Bright told me that he and Disraeli
were sitting together one night I think
in the smoking room of the house of
commons talking , like the pair in
Kirke White's poem , 'of various things
of taxes , ministers and kings , ' and ,
among other subjects , of the amount of
time that had to be given up to the
work of parliament. Disraeli paused
for a moment , and then said : 'You
know , Bright , what you and I come
here for we both come here for fame. '
Bright earnestly insisted that he came
there for no purpose of the kind ; but he
assured me that it was impossible to
convince Disraeli that ho was serious in
the disclaimer. Disraeli ceased to ar
gue the point , and listened with a quiet
half-sarcastic smile satisfied
- , evidently quite
isfied in his own mind that a man who
could make great speeches must make
them with the desire of obtaining fame.
Bright's objection to Disraeli was
founded mainly on the assumption that
Disraeli was , and must bo , a radical re
former at heart ; that a man of his intel
lect could not be anything else ; and
that , therefore , he had become a Tory
with the object of making his way to a
liigh position in parliament and in so
ciety. This sort of assumption or con
clusion belonged to Bright's whole habit
of mind , and he could not free himself
from it. He judged everybody by a
rigid moral standard which he had set
up in his own mind , and which as
sumed that every honest man possessed
of intelligence must really bo in favor of
an extended electoral suffrage. In this
way Cobden had a far more liberal
mind , and was quite able to understand
that a man might differ absolutely from
him on the most essential principles of
radicalism and yet be deserving of con
fidence and admiration. "
There is a grateful glimpse of Disraeli
acting as guide to the sightless Fawcett :
"On one of the first occasions when
he was thus kindly conducted , his guide
seemed especially careful and anxious
about him , and took a great deal of
trouble in conducting him safely on his
way. There was something about the
manner of the guide which seemed to
Fawcett markedly kind and genial ;
and when he had reached the place he
wanted he said to his companion : 'I
am afraid I do not know your name. '
'Yet yon have heard it often , ' was the
reply , delivered in a deep-toned voice ;
'my name is Disraeli. ' "
How Disraeli received an inopportune
and infelicitous compliment is thus de
scribed :
"An acquaintance of mine , formerly
a member of the house of commons ,
stopped Disraeli in one of the lobbies
during a critical division , and said to
him ; 'Mr. Disraeli , my wife and my
daughters are great admirers of your
novels. ' Disraeli blandly replied : 'Sir ,
that is indeed fame. ' And the fun of it
was that my poor old friend always told
the story himself , with positive pride ,
as a proof of Disraeli's affability and
thankfulness. "
The late Sir John Mowbray comes infer
for one of Mr. McCarthy's most pleasant
anecdotes :
' 'As I was passing the group in the
lobby , Sir John Mowbray's quick eye
lighted on me. 'Mr. Justin McCarthy , '
he said , in a tone of amazing solemnity ,
'I want my friends here to see how we
conservative gentlemen treat Irish mem
bers publicly accused of favoring con
spiracies to murder. ' Then , in an in
stant , the solemn manner was changed ,
and Sir John's eye beamed with its
wonted animation and kindliness. ' Give
me your hand , my dear McCarthy , ' he
exclaimed , 'and let me present yon to my
friends here , who will be all delighted to
know you. ' No words of mine could
tell how deeply I was touched by such a