OO J 
ON PRACTICAL OPTIMISM. moh 
Buddhists? There is plenty of misery here in London, and it is certainly 
not the Buddhist who is most miserable. These pessimistic views are the 
luxury of the rich, of the very affected and the very pampered class 
of Sybarites, who consider indulgence in pessimism a matter of enjoyment. 
It strikes us as a strange and curious phenomenon to witness these things, 
and one can but wonder how on earth such people are not practical optimists ; 
they love life only too well, and yet they like to make us believe that they 
hold the pessimistic view of existence. To many of us, it is a startling 
thing to remember that such an exposition as we find in this paper is really 
needed. Hartmann confessed that Christianity is ‘‘The best consolation of 
the poor and wretched,” and so it really is ; and if we study the life-history 
of the inhabitants of London, we shall certainly find that now, as at all 
times, itis the idle, the rich, and the luxurious who are the pessimists, while 
the poor and miserable, to whom eighteen hundred years ago the gospel of 
Christ was given, are those who regard it as their chief hope and blessing. 
Captain Francis Perrin, F.G.S. (Hon. Sec.).—Among the letters 
received from those unable to be present this evening is one from Dr. Harold 
Browne, Bishop of Winchester, who says :—“I have read Canon Saumarez 
Smith’s paper with great interest. I think it very able and good.” 
Mr. P. Vernon Smiru.—I do not think it possible to express a different 
opinion from that which has been put before us in the very able and interesting 
paper which we have just had the privilege of hearing. Consequently, what 
remains to be said must, like the remarks which have fallen from our 
Chairman, be merely in illustration of what the lecturer has put before us. 
Proceeding on that line, I would venture to call the attention of the 
members of this Institute to a passage that was brought to my recollection 
by glancing at the paper before I came here. It is contained in a book, 
entitled Reasonable Apprehensions and -Reassuring Hints. Among the 
“apprehensions” with which the author deals is one which he says must 
strike everybody as being put forward as an objection to Christianity by all 
who look at the problem apart from Revelation. He asks, ‘Can man from 
nature arrive at any definite conclusions, any trustworthy indications, as to 
the disposition, the benevolence, or the malevolence of the Creator towards 
the creatures of His hand?” This question must, I think, bear very clearly on 
the question of optimism or pessimism, because if we admit a Creator, and if 
He be a benevolent Creator, we must take up the optimistic view ; but if, on 
the other hand, He is a malevolent Creator, we must suppose the state of 
things He has created to be otherwise than optimistic. 
Canon W. Saumarez Smitu.—I am very much obliged to those who have 
spoken in regard to the line of thought I have followed in my paper. The 
quotation of my cousin, Mr. Vernon Smith, was very apt and remarkable, 
and what our Chairman said at the beginning of the discussion was very 
much in illustration of the ineradicable truth which resides in the contest 
between persons who are either pessimists or not. I think I may say that 
VOL. XXI. 8 
