6

form block categories into which goods can be readily divided, and a matter of infinite detail may be reduced to one of considerable simplicity by a sort of Railway Code Napoléon.

One other remark must be made as to a part of clause 25, which, as it stands, is only an evasion of a difficulty, and an evasion which, without satisfying the railway managers, will be fiercely contested by the freighters. It is the provision which authorises the commissioners, in deciding as to undue preference, to take into consideration whether a lower charge on foreign goods is necessary for securing the traffic in ' respect of which it is made.' For any excuse which was to be made for the introduction of such a condition, the prime requisite is absent. It is the proof, not only that such traffic cannot be secured at a higher rate, but also that it will pay a proper proportionate profit to the company at the low rate. This is, in fact, the reappearance of the old difficulty which clause 28 is intended to remove. It is to the interest of the public that freight charges should be fair and equal. It is to the interest of the shareholders, and, in the long run, to that of the public, that they should be remunerative. It is contrary to public policy, and ruinous as a business principle, to make one description of freight pay for the carriage of another. This, it is the contention of reputable experts, is what the mineral traffic now involves. Whether it be coals from an English colliery, or cattle, hops, or ironwork from a foreign port, it is very easy to see that some traffic can only be secured at a very low rate. The real key to the justice of the rate is, not its necessity, but its profit. If that can be shown to be normal, there is no question of undue preference. If it be less than the normal rate, it is certain that either the shareholders, or the complainants as to undue preference, have to pay for 'securing the traffic' to the railway companies. In this case, as in almost every other disputed point, the solution of the question is to be found in an honest and public system of bookkeeping.

Clause 28 is the vital clause of the Bill, in so far as the true interest of all connected with railways is concerned, and it would be well to defer all contentious matter that might endanger the enactment of that valuable clause. As to the first part of the Bill, there will probably be a pretty general accord, and the association of canal with railway law is an undoubted step in the right direction. In each case, however, a demand for a classified return of the servants of the company, on the lines of the English railway return of 1883, should not have been omitted.

VOL. CLXV. NO. CCCXXXVIII.

A A

ART. III. The Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, K.G. By EDWIN HODDER. 3 vols. 8vo. London: 1886.

THE HE lives of great men are being constantly written in increasing numbers. Anyone who achieves distinction in war, in politics, in art, or in letters, seems certain, in this age of writing, to obtain a biographer. The biographies, indeed, which win most popularity are those of selfmade persons. The public derives both pleasure and advantage from learning how men of resolution and genius have raised themselves from small beginnings, have surmounted apparently insuperable obstacles, and have attained, after a life of successful toil, position, power, wealth, rank, and honour. Just as the French soldier is stimulated by the reflection that he carries a possible marshal's bâton in his knapsack, so the English lad perceives from the examples of Lord Eldon and Lord Campbell that the woolsack may be won by the humblest of his fellow countrymen; and that no career is impossible in a country which has produced, in this century alone, a Turner, a Stephenson, a Cobden, a Tenterden, and a host of other selfmade heroes.

Yet, if the imagination is impressed by the stories of men who have risen, the reader should not lightly pass by the lives of those other men who have refused to rise. Men there have been, men there are, whose whole life has been a noble self-sacrifice to duty; who, intent on carrying out the work readiest to their hands, have never turned aside to catch the passing blast of fortune which might have wafted them to distinction; who, devoting their abilities to the service of their fellowmen, have neglected the opportunities which might have led them to office and to fame. It is no exaggerated flattery to say that one of the brightest and best examples of this class of workers is the peer whose biography Mr. Hodder has given to us.

In preparing himself for the work which he has undertaken, Mr. Hodder enjoyed many advantages. He commenced his labours during Lord Shaftesbury's lifetime; he gained much information from Lord Shaftesbury's own lips; and the journals which Lord Shaftesbury kept were placed at his disposal. In addition to such assistance, Mr. Hodder has brought to his task a knowledge of his hero's views, and a sympathy with his opinions, which combine to make him a feeling exponent of Lord Shaftesbury's

career. His style, too, is always clear, and occasionally vigorous; his volumes are, on the whole, commendably free from inaccuracies; and he has succeeded in placing Lord Shaftesbury before his readers, and in giving them a very clear insight into his character. He has written a good book-a book which is, in fact, so good that we wish he had followed two or three rules which would have made it better.

Before, however, explaining the particulars in which Mr. Hodder has, we think, erred as a biographer, we must discharge a reviewer's duty by pointing out the few inaccuracies which we have noticed in his pages. In his first volume (p. 75) he has inserted a letter from the Duke of Wellington, dated October 13, 1827, referring among other things to that unfortunate affair, the battle of Navarino. The battle of Navarino was not fought-as indeed Mr. Hodder rightly explains in a note-till October 20. It is evident, therefore, that the Duke of Wellington could not have referred to it on the 13th. William IV. ascended the throne in 1830; his Majesty of 1829 was George IV. (vol. i. p. 111). Newark was not disfranchised by the first Reform Act (ibid. p. 111). No less a person than Mr. Gladstone represented it after 1832. Sir C. Wetherell never spelt his name Wetherall; Lord Cottesloe's surname is Fremantle, not Freemantle; Sir James Stephen is the judge; the best known Stephens is the Fenian; the famous deputation of Irish bishops waited on William IV. (vol. i. p. 196) during the Administration of Lord Grey and not during the Ministry of Lord Melbourne. Dante wrote nessun maggior dolore maggiore dolore' (ibid. p. 281) is offensive both to ear and rhythm. Mr. Gladstone was President, not Vice-President, of the Board of Trade in 1845 (vol. ii. p. 95). The Corn and Customs Bill of 1846 passed the Lords on the same night that Sir Robert Peel's Administration was overthrown on the Coercion Bill; it did not receive the royal assent (vol. ii. p. 137) till some time afterwards. It is inaccurate to say (vol. ii. p. 459) that, on November 1, 1853, Russia declared war against Turkey: a state of war arose on October 23, when the ultimatum of Turkey was not complied with. These are slight errors which we have noticed in reading Mr. Hodder's volumes, and which we merely mention to enable him to correct them in any future edition.

There are, however, two other and graver criticisms which we must offer on Mr. Hodder's work. It is, in the first place,

inordinately long. We are prepared to admit as fully as our author the great merits of Lord Shaftesbury, and the signal benefits which he conferred on his fellow countrymen. But is it necessary to devote nearly 1,600 pages to describing them? Lord Shaftesbury's career, it must be recollected, is solely interesting from his incessant labours to improve the condition of the poorer classes. It throws no new light on the political or literary history of England; and the story could have been told in half the space which Mr. Hodder has allotted to it. No doubt any writer whose works are worth reading must be impressed with the superior importance of the subject which he has chosen. He cannot hope to interest his readers if he has not first interested himself. But authors should try to recollect that, in this age of bookmaking, the most industrious readers find it. impossible to digest the ever increasing accumulations of literature; and that diffuseness is incompatible with immortality. However ready people may be to read three volumes about Lord Shaftesbury in 1887, few persons will care to read three volumes on such a subject in 1907. Hew out every other word-such was Sydney Smith's precept. Hew out every other page is the advice which we should give to many modern authors.

6

In the next place, Mr. Hodder's volumes would have been not only shortened, but improved, by the omission of most of the extracts from Lord Shaftesbury's diary. Lord Shaftesbury himself told Mr. Hodder that his diaries were of no value to anyone but himself; that they had never been seen, and never would be seen, by anyone. He actually prepared on one occasion to destroy them, and it was only after repeated applications that he allowed Mr. Hodder to make use of them. We cannot help thinking that Lord Shaftesbury was right. Thoughts jotted down' as they pass through a writer's mind cannot always be published without injury to the writer. Thoughts, too, we must add, on the most sacred subjects. jotted down on the most solemn occasions, and, as Lord Shaftesbury himself declared, for his own eye alone, cannot be given to the world with any advantage. We recollect, indeed, that in the life of the elder Wilberforce his sons have preserved copious extracts from their father's pious meditations. But we always read these passages with pain. They seem to us too solemn and too private to be given to general readers. The publican's prayer becomes no better than the Pharisee's if it is embodied in its author's journal and published by his literary executor.

Take such a passage as this, which we have selected from many others at random. In it and in all instances in this article Mr. Hodder is responsible for the italics.

6

Yesterday, Easter Sunday, took Lord's Supper. God be praised! When reading St. John, and the last words on the Cross, "It is "finished," convinced that, if the doctrine of transubstantiation be true, Christ would have said, "It is begun." It is begun, the series of sacrifices, now commenced by my death, to be repeated to the end of time. Again, in Corinthians: "Ye show forth the Lord's death "till He come." On the Romish assumption we do not show forth, or proclaim, or commemorate the Lord's death. Each time we take the Holy Sacrament we cause his death, we renew it, we compass it. All alike foolish and blasphemous.' (Vol. iii. p. 21.)

Mr. Hodder would probably say that the insertion of such a passage as this illustrates a phase of Lord Shaftesbury's character. Our complaint is that it deforms it. Can any human being, acquainted with Lord Shaftesbury, believe that he would have wished the fact that he attended sacrament on Easter Sunday recorded for thousands of readers, or imagine that, if he had desired that his views on the doctrine of transubstantiation should be known, he would not have wished to state them fully, reverently, and in a form free from offence to many into whose hands these volumes will fall? A passage such as this is natural enough in a private diary; it is an error both of taste and judgement to publish it.

If, however, we object to the publication of such a passage as the foregoing, we protest against the insertion of some of Lord Shaftesbury's hasty judgements upon men who were friends of his own. Lord Shaftesbury had a singularly sensitive nature. He was subject to alternate moods of hope and depression; and, in moments of discouragement, he wrote down statements which in no sense represented his real opinions, and which ought not to have been reproduced. Take, for instance, the following:

I have thought for some years that Peel and John Russell are the most criminal of mankind: they are invested with enormous powers of doing good to the human race, and they utterly neglect them.' (Vol. i. p. 477.)

We do not enter into the justice of the latter part of this verdict, though most persons will consider that few statesmen have done so much for the human race as Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell. What we complain of is that an exaggerated denunciation of two men who were living on terms of intimacy with the writer, hastily jotted down in a