of sound public sentiment should be reposed, to be exerted in emergencies. "The Senate consists of three hundred members elected for a term of nine years, one third retiring every three years. At one time seventy-five of the Senators sat for life, but that principle has been abolished, and as vacancies occur in the life Senatorships they are filled by election. The Senators are not chosen directly by the people, but by a special electoral body representative of the communes and departments. It will readily be seen that the French Senate has more power and authority than most upper houses of European legislatures, and that, if discretion justified the course, President Faure might, with the sanction implied in its recent votes, drive the Ministry out of office by a threat of dissolution. That act would force a crisis and an open struggle between the President and the Senate on one side and the Chamber of Deputies on the other."- The Transcript, Boston. The American System is Better.-"The Moderates are too much afraid of a single Assembly to let the Senate be swept away, or to see its power nullified without a struggle. Perhaps out of the constant disagreement may finally come mutual consent to a revision of the Constitution in the American sense-making the President's Cabinet Ministers stable as long as he is satisfied with them, and doing away with the ministerial flummery as a part of the discarded monarchy. Then these incidents and accidents which now serve to encourage pretenders and to worry the nation will disappear from French politics. President Faure is reported to have a leaning toward the American system. He would confer a favor upon France by inaugurating it during his term of office." —The Journal, New York. "The Constitution requires the Ministry to resign when it suffers an adverse vote in Parliament. Hitherto an adverse vote in the Lower House has served. But, theoretically, the Upper House has just as much authority. The question is thus raised for the first time whether the Ministry is the creature of the two Houses, and of the Upper as well as of the Lower, or of the Lower House alone. In England, of course, it was settled long ago. The Ministry is answerable to the Commons alone. But the French Senate has no mind to fall to the political level of the House of Lords."- The Tribune, New York. "Another feature of the situation which is peculiar to French politics is the notorious fact that the Chamber itself has no real confidence in the present Government, which is extremely Radical and which has to depend for its power on a temporary and fickle combination of the extreme Radicals and extreme Conservatives. The spectacle is thus presented of a Government which does not command a majority in either House, but which is sustained by an alliance in the lower one between two elements of irreconciliable antagonism.”—The News, Detroit. "The talk of 'pretenders' and 'military intervention' is newspaper vaporing. Thus far the Radical minority has disappointed all its critics by doing remarkably good service for France. Bourgeois has a pack of rascals on the run, and the French people understand it. If he falls from power he will place himself at the head of a popular movement against corrupt Opportunists in the Senate and the Chamber."-The Evening Post, Chicago. man voted as a [State] Senator who had no right so to vote. There were thirty votes cast on the day when Dupont claims to have been elected, of which he received fifteen, not a majority if all were counted. One vote was cast by the acting governor, Watson, who had been regularly elected Senator and president of that body, and became acting Governor on the death of Governor Marvil. Dupont's title depends on Watson's right to vote, which the Delaware Senate recognized, but which the United States Senate is asked to deny. The question therefore turns on which is the judge of the qualifications of the members of a State Legislature to vote in a Senatorial election, the Houses of that Legislature or the United States Senate? "If it be accepted as settled that the United States Senate is to be this judge, the further question arises how far back may the United States Senate go in investigating the qualifications of members of State legislatures? May it go back of the election returns and consider charges of fraud, intimidation, and bribery at the polls? Would it have the right to reject Dupont's claims, for instance, if it found that he had paid the poll-taxes of voters on consideration that they support candidates in his interest, and that such candidates had received such purchased votes? Where is the line to be drawn, and what is to be the standing in other matters of the legislators upon whose title to their seats such a Senatorial ruling has thrown a cloud? Certainly if the Senate committee is right in this Dupont matter all State laws governing elections are subject to review by that body, and any one can be refused a seat who claims election under laws which the Senate disapproves."-The Republican (Ind.), Springfield, Mass. Right to Act as Governor and Vote as Senator. “That Constitution [of the State of Delaware] provides that in the event of a vacancy in the governor's office the president of the Senate shall act as governor. The question is as to whether he can act as governor and still remain a Senator. Taking the condition of affairs in a reasonable point of view, it would not seem that he could do this, but there is nothing in the constitution of Delaware that forbids it, and its interpretation in the State itself is to the effect that such is his right. A case arose soon after the constitution was adopted in which there was a vacancy in the governorship filled by the president of the Senate. In this instance that officer acted as a governor until the term of office of the governor had expired, and then went back to the Senate and filled out his term in that body. There does not seem to have been objection to his doing this, and in the legislature at the time were members who had served in making the constitution. They were supposed to know what that constitution meant. They so interpreted it, and the State acquiesced in that action. "In an equitable point of view, the Senatorial district represented by this president of the Senate who was acting governor was entitled to a representation. If the transfer of the Senator to the governorship had made a vacancy there, the voters in it had a right to fill this vacancy. Especially had they the right, through their Senator, to participate in the choice of a United States Senator. But both parties seem to have agreed that there could be no new Senator elected then. Was this district, then, disfranchised in electing a United States Senator because its representative had been made acting governor? This would be more unreasonable than to give the acting governor a vote in that election. Singular as such a provision in the Delaware constitution may appear, it seems, therefore, that it did intend that the governor, under these circumstances, should have a vote. It will be noted that it calls him not governor, but acting governor; by usage his right to return to his seat in the Senate after he had done acting as governor was sustained; there was no provision for filling his seat in the Senate, which shows that it was not regarded as vacant; the only alternative, therefore, was to disfranchise a Senatorial district, and it is not for a moment to be assumed that this was intended. In point of fact, those who contend for the right of the acting governor to vote on the election of a United States Senator have been eager to submit the decision of the question to the Supreme Court of Delaware, while the other side would not agree to such action."-The Herald (Ind.), Boston. Ceased to be State Senator When He Became Governor."On the 43d ballot Colonel Dupont received 15 votes, with 15 votes scattered among other candidates. At this juncture [State] Senator Aldrich introduced a motion protesting against Governor Watson's vote. The governor, then assuming to preside as speaker of the Senate, refused to entertain the motion, and when three o'clock arrived, the hour fixed for final adjournment, Governor Watson adjourned the body sine die. The speaker of the House, Mr. McMullen, then announced that Colonel Dupont had received 15 votes in the joint Assembly, in which there were 29 lawful votes; that he was duly elected United States Senator, and certified his election to the Senate, Governor Watson withholding a certificate. . . . "The Delaware constitution provides that no person holding a Federal or State office shall, while exercising the duties of said office, be a State Senator or Representative, and when a vacancy occurs in the governorship by death or otherwise, the speaker of the Senate shall exercise the office until a governor is elected by the popular vote. The natural construction of these constitutional provisions is that one person shall not exercise the office of State Senator and another State office at the same time. Any other interpretation places a forced and strained construction on the fundamental law. As in all other constitutions, provision is made in this instrument for the succession to the governorship when the office becomes vacant. In that event the Speaker of the Senate becomes governor, and unless the salutary principle that executive and legislative functions shall be kept separate and distinct from each other is set aside, Mr. Watson ceased to be a State Senator when he became governor. As The Ledger has heretofore remarked in referring to this case, to allow the same person to act in a dual official capacity, to act as governor one day and Senator the next, assuming both offices at pleasure to meet political exigencies, would reduce our American system of government to chaos, confusion, and disorder."-The Ledger (Ind. Rep.), Philadelphia. THE ATTEMPTS TO HOLD BIG FORTUNES TOGETHER. ΤΗ HE multi-millionaire, Senator Fair, of California, left all his property to four trustees to hold until after the death of his children, when it is to be divided among their children and the children of his brothers and sisters. A contest over the will has been going on for some time, and the first definite result is the declaration by Judge Black, of the Superior Court of San Francisco, that the "trust clause" of the will is, so far as the real property is concerned, invalid. The judge's decision is technically based on the fact that the provision giving the trustees the right to "transfer and convey" the property to the grandchildren on their parents' death is not specifically provided for in the The estate of the Charles. Crocker and his wife is also a trust. late Dr. Samuel Merritt is also a trust, but it is being contested. The estate of James G. Fair was to be made a trust, but the first step in breaking it has been effective, and we hope the subsequent steps will also be successful. "There is no valid reason, affecting the public weal, why estates should be tied up even for the term of one life. As one of the attorneys justly said, the Fair estate under the trust might be tied up for over seventy years, for it is fair to presume that Miss Virginia Fair, the youngest of the heirs, may live sixty years longer. It would then be divided among the children of the heirs. Thus for nearly three quarters of a century would this large estate be tied up. The New York Tribune, in its census of millionaires, found that there were 4,047 in the United States and 192 in California. Without trying to forecast the results of 4.con testamentary trusts in the United States, what would be the effect of nearly 200 such trusts in a State like California? This State is already sufficiently handicaped with the drawbacks incident to monopoly in land and railroad holdings; if, in addition to that, all the millionaires who die should tie up their property in corporate form, California would be a good State to emigrate from. "There are many people who believe that the breaking of wills and breaking of trusts is an infringement on natural right. But no such right exists. A dead man expresses his wishes through his will, and the State allows him to do so as a privilege, but that is all.. A dead man does not own anything. When a man dies, his property reverts to the commonwealth. In the course of centuries a custom has arisen of the State permitting a man to indicate how his property shall be disposed of after his death-within certain limitations. Until it is disposed of, the State holds it in the custody of its courts. This custom has crystallized into statute. But the mere fact that the State imposes limitations, shows that it controls the estates of the dead. It practically owns them. If it can say, as in this State, that not more than one third of an estate shall be left to charitable institutions, it could say two thirds or it could say none at all; or it could say that the entire estate should be left absolutely to charity. It has the power. It does not exercise it. But the fact remains that the estates of the dead are the property of the commonwealth, and that disposing of property by will is a purely artificial right, the creature of statute, and a right which can be taken away, as it has been given." TO EXTERMINATE THE SEALS OF BERING SEA. Civil Code of California, and under that code trusts in real prop- PENDING the question of final arbitration of claims for dam erty are confined to those for the purposes specified in the code. The San Francisco Argonaut, using this decision as a text, points out that nearly every contested will case in California has been broken. "Even the testamentary trust founded by Horace Hawes, the author of the Consolidation Act, a profound lawyer and skilful conveyancer, was set aside by a jury as so much waste paper. The Walkerley trust was recently set aside. The Aldrich trust is now being contested. Already there are some scores of cases in our courts, wherein steps are being taken to set aside testamentary trusts." The Argonaut comments on the increasing tendency of millionaires to leave their fortunes in the shape of trusts, controlled by trustees with the power of nominating their successors, or controlled by chartered corporations that become practically selfperpetuating. It says: "In this and in other States the number of testamentary trusts is large, and is increasing. When Jay Gould died, he tied up his estate in,a trust extending over two generations, and placed his eldest son, George Gould, at the head of it. When William Astor died, he left the bulk of his enormous fortune to the oldest heir male, John Jacob Astor, as William Astor's father had done before him. The Vanderbilt family are following the same plan, and keeping the bulk of the family fortune intact. The estate of the late Senator Stanford is also a trust; as it is an educational trust, however, it is not a menace, but redounds to the benefit of the people rather than to their injury. The estate of the late ages against the Government of the United States growing out of the award of the Paris tribunal, steps are being taken in both Houses of Congress to settle once for all the continual controversy over pelagic sealing in Bering Sea, by killing off the seals. The Ways and Means Committee of the House, in accord with the favorable consideration already given to the proposition by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has ordered a favorable report on Chairman Dingley's bill to amend the law intended to prevent the extermination of fur-bearing animals in Alaska. The measure authorizes the President to conclude negotiations with Great Britain, Russia, and Japan for the further investigation of the seal question, with a view of establishing new regulations for their protection; if the negotiations fail to bring about effectual protection of the seal herd, the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to take and kill all seals on the Pribylof Islands and sell their skins to the best advantage. press in gen This novel ultimatum is upheld by the American eral, tho it is hoped that England may be brought to terms by it and the necessity for the heroic measures implied may thereby be averted. Extermination of the Herds.-"Against our protests she [England] succeeded in getting from the Paris tribunal liberty to carry on pelagic sealing in Bering Sea beyond a distance of sixty miles from the breeding islands. The result is, as Secretary Carlisle says, that last year 44,169 seals were taken in that sea alone, in addition to the numbers caught in the North Pacific and This to the great number killed in the water and not recovered. surpasses all records; and yet our catch on the islands, being limited to male seals of a certain age, fell to 15,000 last season, whereas it used to be 100,000 in days when pelagic sealing did not reach one tenth of that number, both in the North Pacific and Bering Sea, on the shores of Asia and America combined. "We will cite just one fact from many in Secretary Carlisle's report: "The most conclusive evidence of the fatal results on the seal herd of pelagic sealing in Bering Sea, where, according to official returns, over 73 per cent. of the American and 56 per cent. of the British Canadian catch consisted of females, was the finding by our agents on the islands this season of over 28,000 seal pups which had died of starvation, their mothers having been killed at sea by pelagic sealers while in search of food beyond the sixtymile zone.' "The pending bill, therefore, provides, in case a final appeal to England is unsuccessful, for killing the seals at once instead of waiting until they perish no less surely under the present Paris rules; for, as Mr. Carlisle concludes, 'under their operation, the fur seals of the American herd will be exterminated commercially within a very few years.' It would certainly be not less merciful than exterminating them, as the pelagic sealers are doing, by killing the mother seals and leaving over 20,000 of the young to die of starvation in a single year. We could also compensate ourselves, as far as is now possible, for heavy patrolling and other expenses. "Our experience in this matter has been thus far not unlike that of the Guiana boundary dispute. We have made courteous appeals in vain; the alternative presented in the pending bill will perhaps bring England to terms, in view of the threatened destruction both of the Dominion's industry in catching seals and London's industry in preparing the skins for market. If not, the sooner an end is put to this miserable business perhaps the better."- The Sun, New York. are The Seal Issue has been Unduly Magnified. “If we shut up to a choice between two methods of exterminating the fur seals, the one involving constant and severe loss and the other at least temporarily profitable, the latter is the method to choose. •If Canadians and others—Canadians especially—will not observe reasonable regulations and cooperate with us in maintaining a closed season and proper methods of seal-hunting, but will persist in killing in season and out of season, and by methods which spare neither young nor old, male or female, or if our own citizens will not obey the regulations which Congress has ordained to govern sealing in Bering Sea, it may be the best thing to do to destroy the herds and make sealing a lost industry. It is certain that the present situation can not continue, and it is better to compel the other interested powers to choose which horn of the dilemma they will take. "The seal issue has been unduly magnified, for there would be no perceptible diminution of health, comfort, and civilization if the seal industry should become extinct, and for this reason it is desirable that it be finally disposed of in some manner. If Great Britain—which means Canada-Russia, and Japan will enter into an agreement with the United States to regulate seal-catching in a proper manner, this would be the most desirable outcome of this long-drawn-out controversy, which has already cost this country more in political buncombe, wasted time in Congress, useless diplomatic maneuvering, strained foreign relations and cash outlay-to say nothing about the darker side of the history involved in the dealings of the lessees of the Pribylofs with the Government-than all the seals are worth. Certainly the interests of these other powers are as much involved in such a settlement as are our own, and only short-sighted anxiety to reap a temporary gain stands in the way of their acceptance of it."—The Republican, Springfield. Great Britain Fears to Offend Canada.-"This method of settling this exasperating international squabble was suggested more than a year ago [the House passed a similar bill under suspension of the rules] but was not acted upon, because it was thought that England would consent to some arrangement. There is less probability now than there was then that the British Government can be induced to do anything to stay the rapid extermination of the seals, and the devices employed by the seal pirates are so cruel that, rather than have them continued, it will be better to destroy all the seals at once. “The regulations of the Paris tribunal are either insufficient or the two countries do not properly enforce them. It has been charged that the United States is at fault in not more firmly demanding the enforcement of these regulations, but it is doubtful if the Government could do more than it has done in that direction. Great Britain is really the party at fault. The British Government has displayed a stubborn apathy in the matter, which can be accounted for only upon the theory that it fears to offend Canada by doing its duty. Great Britain has a larger interest in the preservation of the seals than the United States, but has a horror of running counte to the shortsighted policy of the Canadians."The North American, Philadelphia. TOPICS IN BRIEF. THE report that Niagara Falls is going dry will sooner or later turn up in the shape of an argument against the Chicago drainage-canal. - The Times-Herald, Chicago. SENATOR TILLMAN claims to be a farmer. Well, he certainly has been harrowing the feelings of the other Senators. The Times-Union, Jacksonville, Fla. Is it true that many an eminent statesman thinks less of the father of his country than of its pap?— The Times, Philadelphia. WILLIAM MCKINLEY does not know when an issue is not an issue.The World, New York. THE difference between Mr. Morgan and Oliver is that when Morgan cries for more he gets it.-The Press, New York. HE Was No Statesman. "You, sir," shouted the reformer, you are no statesman. " แ "Statesman?" echoed the boss, laughing harshly. I got statesmien to sell." The Enquirer, Cincinnati, O. THE Valkyrie is for sale, with the stock and features, but without the good-will. The Ledger, Philadelphia. LETTERS AND ART. THE LYRICS OF THE DAY. HE English-American war-cloud has already passed so far out of sight that it is being forgotten, yet it left many things in its trail which have been preserved as relics, some having been deposited in the cabinet of statecraft and others shelved as bric-à-brac. Among the literary souvenirs of the occasion are not a few poems. The subjoined letter was lately received by an Englishman from an American friend: "TOPEKA, KANSAS, December 31, 1895. "Dear Sir:-I enclose newspaper clipping which expresses my feelings about the late outbreak between England and the United States. I do not think there will be any war; but as I think I said to you once when we were discussing the subject, it is true that there remains in the minds of the common people of America considerable ancient prejudice against England. For one hundred years since the Revolutionary War the school-books have been full of revolutionary literature. The fiery speeches of Patrick Henry and other patriots this side of the water and other verse and prose in which, of course, England was held up as a tyrant, heightened the feeling. Then there was the War of 1812, and then followed the irritation on account of matters occurring during the war of the Rebellion; but I feel sure that no war will result. Already I think there is a reaction of very strong decided character.-Yours truly, ****"* The following is the extract from the Kansas newspaper referred to in the above letter, together with which it appeared in The St. James's Gazette: THE GOSPEL OF HATE. ["We are unanimous in our hatred of England."-From a late interview with a late statesman.] Hate England? Hate our kith and kin From Caithness' crags to Cornwall's foam, But who is this that preaches Hate?— Who built a great renown of spite Who called the Christian statesman, fool, So, while the bells of Christendom A new Messiah clears his throat, While thoughtless followers, mid the murk Hate bullying? Aye; hate greed? Amen; In Briton or American;- But hate all England? Shame! No, never! Hate lust for land, and hate no less The greed that seeks its gain in gore; Stand fast, as England's taught us, yes, The wrongs of Armenia at the hands of the English Govern. ment continue to inflame British poets to passionate song. The following sonnet by Mr. H. D. Rawnsley appears in The Speaker: ENGLAND AND ARMENIA. Once was she hailed "Defender of the world! To her the oppressed ones looked and cried the slave, We praise the valiant knights of old Who lived to fight, who lived to dare; They fought and loved and dreamed and died Beneath bright suns and tender moons They wooed sweet maids with ardent will; They fought their rivals-fought to kill. For all that passionate love can give; Show them how eager faith may live- The hero's sword, the sparkling lance; Of shields and pennants and romance. In time we Americans shall have a "monumental" past. Aside from great expressions of art, a number of lesser things are being done that will in future years relieve this age of its alleged purely materialistic aspect. man in these verses: One such is celebrated by Mr. Bliss Car STEVENSON MEMORIAL. An Inscription for the Drinking-Fountain to be set up in San Francisco. And good to quench your body's thirst: To glad that wayward soul of yours? Here by the thronging Golden Gate Here passed one day, nor came again, Be thankful, friend, as you pass on, And pray for Louis Stevenson, That by whatever trail he fare He be refreshed in God's great care! S° IN REMEMBRANCE. My cup is the cup of sorrow, The breath of the myrrh and aloes But if ever I fain would leave it With the bitter dregs unquaffed, Jesus, I try to remember Thine was a harder draft! My path is beset with briars : A wearier road was Thine! My cross is of fire and iron: It wounds to the very bone; But if to the top of Calvary I needs must climb alone, When the soul that I would have died for Turns, ice and stone, from me, Savior of all, I remember A world rejected Thee! PRAISE FOR "JUDE THE OBSCURE." much periodical and journalistic space has been given to adverse criticism of Mr. Thomas Hardy's latest novel, "Jude the Obscure," that in fairness the other side of the question should be fully represented. We return to the subject here for the purpose of quoting from an article by Mr. D. F. Hannigan, in the February Westminster Review. In the first place Mr. Hannigan denies that Mr. Hardy is "realistic," in the common sense of the term. He thinks that Hardy's sympathies are manifestly with the French naturalistic school of fiction, but that we can not regard him as a writer of the same class as Zola or Guy de Maupassant. Through all that Hardy has written he traces the vibration of a passionate chivalry to which we find no parallel in French realism, and says that in our generation there has been no novelist capable of exhibiting the mysterious fascination of woman upon the other sex with the same art and the same force of imagination. Leading up to his main point, Mr. Hannigan speaks of his subject as follows: "He has shrunk from the portrayal of commonplace women-if we except the case of Arabella in his last novel-and the charming creatures around whom the interest of 'Far from the Madding Crowd,' 'The Trumpet Major,' and nearly all his other works, including 'Tess of the D'Urbervilles,' centers, seem like etherealized beings-fays, sirens, who disguise themselves as farmeresses, parsons' daughters, unconventional heiresses, bishops' wives, schoolmistresses, or agricultural working-girls. “To ordinary men of the world such creatures as Elfride in ‘A Pair of Blue Eyes' probably appear as unreal as Cinderella. Tess, no doubt, walks through dreadful realities to a tragic doom, and I can easily imagine the horror of a mere romantic trifler like Mr. Andrew Lang on finding a woman with such a record put forward as a heroine of fiction. But she, too, is the opposite of commonplace. Hers is a rich, voluptuous, daring, downright nature, such as old Babylon might have produced, in spite of her prosaic surroundings and her squalid miseries. The physiognomy of character, which defies external circumstances, has been recognized by Mr. Hardy, and he alone among living English novelists has fully realized the great truth that a Cleopatra may be found toiling on a Wessex farm, that the soul of Mary Stuart may animate a nineteenth-century middle-class girl." Mr. Hannigan is sure that such beings as Tess are possible, and says that thanks are due to Mr. Hardy for having presented to us in his stories entrancingly fascinating creatures, who, unlike the objectionable crowd of so-called "advanced" women, are free from money-worship, low ambition, and aggressiveness, and are essentially feminine, like Helen of Troy, Mary Magdalen, and Heloise. We quote again : "Mr. Hardy, then, is a worshiper of the ideal woman, and his heroines are all free from the vice of what I venture to describe as feminine masculinity (disregarding the criticism of logicchoppers)-the novelist has stripped them of materializing influences, so that, to use in a different sense the words of a popular English poet, 'all that remains of them now is pure womanly.' It has frequently amused me to hear 'good young men' abuse Mr. Hardy for having on his title-page called poor Tessa pure woman. Why did these admirably moral prigs forget Tom Hood's immortal line, which fully explains the novelist's meaning? 666 'Jude the Obscure' is a very different kind of book from 'Tess of the D'Urbervilles.' In 'Tess' the entire interest of the novel is attached to the life of a woman; in 'Jude,' just as in 'The Mayor of Casterbridge,' it gathers round the career of a man. The history of Jude's ineffectual efforts to obtain a university education is intensely pathetic. If Samuel Johnson could come back to earth and read this portion of Mr. Hardy's last novel, I venture to think that he would have found it hard to keep back his tears, stern Briton tho he was; and, but for the miserable priggery of this tail-end of the nineteenth century, the first part of 'Jude the Obscure' would be held up by the critics as one of the most touching records in all literature. This story of crushed aspirations can only be appreciated by those who have the power of true sympathy. Unfortunately, we live in an age when nearly all human beings are concerned only with their material success in life. The word 'failure' makes them tremble; and, no doubt, Mr. Hardy's apparent pessimism is distasteful to the innumerable throng of vulgar-minded aspirants whose only gospel is to 'get on' by hook or by crook. How could we expect the modern young man, whose thoughts are fixed solely on the woolsack or exchange, to enter into the feelings of a poor rustic stonecutter on the results of a successful experiment on the turf or the stock who dreamed of taking out his degree and becoming a clergyman? The love-affairs of so obscure an individual may excite the attention of the unambitious middle-aged man, but not of the youthful prig of our day. . . . “But in spite of certain defects of form which are perhaps inevitable, having regard to the intricacies of a story involving matrimonial complications, 'Jude the Obscure' is the best English novel which has appeared since 'Tess of the D'Urbervilles.' Mr. George Meredith's epigrammatic cleverness can not atone for his poverty of invention, his lack of incident, his fantastic system of misreading human nature, and, if the word 'novelist' means a writer of human history, Mr. Hardy is incomparably superior to his supposed rival. I would class the author of 'Tess' with Fielding, Balzac, Flaubert, Tourgenief, George Eliot, and Dostoievsky; while Mr. Meredith is the literary brother of Bulwer Lytton, Peacock, and Mérimée. The mosquito-like criticism of the day need not trouble a novelist who has already won fame. He is the greatest living English writer of fiction. In intensity, in grip of life, and, above all, in the artistic combinatio nof the real and the ideal, he surpasses any of his French contemporaries. Jude the Obscure' is not his greatest work; but no other living novelist could have written it." |