aa ll al al 
eRe Hoe OY 
77 
3.—“ CARLYLE AND HIS OPINIONS ON PUBLIC MEN.” 
The man who spoke of his countrymen as 24 millions, 
mostly fools, had little difficulty in setting down startling epithets 
for his most striking contemporaries. Of all public men in Great 
Britain—Peel excepted—Carlyle thought little better than he did 
of O'Connell whom he called *‘ chief quack of the world” and 
‘a lying scoundrel.” He considered Mr. Roebuck an ‘acrid 
sandy barren character, dissonant speaking, dogmatic, trivial, 
with a singular exasperation,—restlessness as of diseased vanity 
written over his face when you came near it.” He liked Lord 
Beaconsfield better than Mr. Gladstone on the express ground 
that Mr. Disraeli being a sham, knew it, and would not 
trouble his head to be anything else; while Mr. Gladstone, 
being a sham, did not know it, and was sincere in his insinceri- 
ties. Mr. Disraeli could see facts; he bore no malice; if he was 
without any lofty virtue, he affected no virtuous airs. Carlyle 
considered Mr. Gladstone as ‘‘ the representative of the multitu- 
dinous cants of the age—religious, social, political, literary ; 
the cant actually seemed true to him, he believed it all, and was 
prepared to act on it; again ‘‘Gladstone appears to me one of 
the contemptiblest men I ever looked on.’ And these opinions 
are the result of mighty ken, of marvellous genius! But the 
verdict of history and justice may possibly be on the “side of 
the fools,’ who not without justification, with a view of the 
“eternal facts,’ placed in the hands of each for a season the 
guidance of the affairs of this mighty nation, believing both to 
be possessed of ‘‘ some virtue.” 
Gladstone and Disraeli are men whom we ourselves know. 
Do we not all admit that both these men were lovers of their 
country, benefactors to their fellows, possessors of some modicum 
of the ‘‘virtue’’ of truth? Let us take Carlyle’s advice, “‘ Be 
just and fear not.’’ And if we find that his opinion is not con- 
formable with the ‘‘ facts and verities”’ of these great men as we 
know them, will it be an illogical position to take up if we refuse 
to accept his dogmatic opinions on other men whom we have not 
known personally, but whose works are their witness ? 
We turn away with pain from the fierce invectives Carlyle 
has poured on the fair memories of cherished names like those 
of Charles Lamb, De Quincey, and Wordsworth. Even if we 
admit that these strictures were not meant for the public ear, 
and that little meaning should be attributed to such language, 
we cannot but take note of its wholesale application, which no 
amount of dyspepsia, poverty, or difficulties can excuse; and we 
are forced to the conclusion that although he possessed great 
knowledge, he lacked wisdom,—his opinions when weighed in 
_ the balances being found wanting. A man who gave such rein 
sche, sortee 
