ART. VIII.-FREDERICK LUCAS.

The Life of Frederick Lucas, M.P. By his brother, EDWARD LUCAS. In two vols. London and New York: Burns & Oates. 1886.

HE Catholics of the United Kingdom have been for some years past expecting the biographies of four or five illustrious men. "When is the Life of Cardinal Wiseman to be written?" is a question very often asked. "There ought to be a Life of Charles Langdale " is an assertion frequently made. There have been several memoirs and notices of Charles Waterton; but there has been no biography written of the "prince of naturalists" which has put the whole of his grand character before us. This is the more remarkable as, of all the men whose education has been entirely at any one of our English Catholic colleges, Waterton is the most illustrious. Mr. Riethmüller, in his most interesting, but too short, biography of his early and dear friend Frederick Lucas, " complains," as Mr. Edward Lucas says, "not unreasonably that it should have been left to him, a Protestant, to pay a last tribute of respect to the memory of one who had fought so hard for the Catholic Church and for the interests of the Catholic religion in this country." In Mr. Riethmüller's memoir there is, no doubt, a deficiency, but it is one which could not have been supplied except by a Catholic. There were no doubt reasons why a Life of Frederick Lucas should be deferred, but those reasons have long since ceased to be valid, and Mr. Edward Lucas's Life of his brother has now appeared at a very appropriate time. In one respect it is a disadvantage to the memory of a man that his Life should be written by a brother. The very close relationship may cause a biographer to understate the excellences of his hero for fear it should be supposed that he has written more from affection than from unbiased judgment. If any motive of this kind may have acted upon the author, it has at the same time produced another and a good effect. It has forced Mr. Lucas to bring forward from his brother's writings and his brother's deeds abundant and overpowering evidence of his pre-eminence as a Catholic journalist and a Catholic statesman. The author has done this admirably well. Those men of the present generation who never knew Lucas may rest assured that he was as great a man as from his own words and actions given in the biography he appears to have been. Those amongst us who knew him well must, after thirty-one years, almost start when it is brought vividly to our

recollection that we have lived in days when we had such a power in our midst. Before proceeding to offer any criticism of the two volumes and to speak of Frederick Lucas himself, an expression of thanks, in the name of all Catholics, and especially of the Catholics of the United Kingdom, is due to the author. He has insured that the name of his brother shall be handed down in greatest honour to those who shall come after us; he has insured that the true principles of Catholic action in what we commonly call politics, as practised by his relative and those who worked with him in the middle of the nineteenth century, shall be known to all future generations. To have done this is to have done a great work, and one which excites both admiration and gratitude.

It appears to the writer that there is one defect in the biography which it may be well to mention at starting. There is not enough in it of the early life, and subsequently of the private and domestic life, of Lucas. It is no doubt advisable to avoid satisfying any unwholesome or useless curiosity; a disposition to pry into private life for the purpose of telling it to the world is as objectionable when a man is dead as when he is living. But it is a very good and a very edifying thing to know as much as can be known of those facts which show the gradual development of a noble character. And it seems to be almost a necessary part of biography that those things should be related which prove that the hero of the work was not only great in one or two points, but in the full and true sense a great man. And such certainly was Frederick Lucas. He was essentially a practical man. While he inculcated upon others the most perfect principles of political morality, his own principles of action were thoroughly sound, his own aims high, and he never asked any one to do anything which he himself was not prepared to do, and which he did not actually do himself as far as his state of life and the opportunities which he had allowed him to act. He was a man of strong intellect, quick perception, and great power of reasoning. Reading was perhaps his chief source of enjoyment, and he had a wonderful talent for making what he read serve him for whatever he had on hand. He was a great thinker, and this was apparent in his conversation, which was at the same time enlivened by frequent sallies of humour and wit, and by a hearty merry laugh. But his taste for reading and study, and his power of sustained thinking, never for a moment prevented him from acting when action was required. He never vacillated; he was firm and steady as a rock; but he would never shrink from changing an opinion when he saw good reason for doing so. His endurance was remarkable; he could suffer well, and his self-denial deserves to be called heroic. Merely as the proprietor and editor of a newspaper, he

would have led a comparatively quiet domestic life in the midst of his family and his books, and in frequent intercourse with his friends. But this enjoyment he denied himself. The ten years between 1840 and 1850 were for many young men years of constant active work in a variety of matters in which laymen can help to advance the cause of the Church. Lucas, at the call of duty (though, indeed, there was no obligation on his part), threw himself completely into this kind of life. The consequence was that very frequently after attending evening meetings to establish and carry on all sorts of good works-Guilds, Brotherhoods, Associations, Societies he went to his home late at night tired and jaded, when he might have spent the hours there in peace and quiet. His active work in Ireland must have been much more fatiguing than his labours in England. His long stay in Rome was a pure act of self-denial in the cause of freedom for. Ireland. So far as his natural inclination went, he would have been glad at any moment, during the months he spent in Rome, to have been told by the Holy Father not to meddle any more in the matter for which he had gone there, but to go home. His chivalrous spirit urged him to remain in the Holy City, and he suffered on, through labour and anxiety and, to him, a deathbreathing climate, until, having contracted more than one mortal disease, he came home to die. If the sufferings of martyrs are physically sharper, those of Lucas were more long drawn out, and his pains, like those of the martyrs, only ended in death. Another great quality which Lucas possessed was that he never seemed to have a merely personal dislike towards any one. He had an intense dislike of certain characters and of certain opinions, and he would express this dislike in the strongest language, and with reference to individuals; but his words always left the impression that it was the character and not the person against which he was speaking.

There is no doubt that he sometimes used stronger expressions than many others equally earnest with himself would have employed. He defended this practice on the ground that what he was saying or writing was true, and that there was no need to throw over truth the thin disguise of courtesy. For instance, on one occasion he did not see why, in answering some charges or statements made by an ecclesiastical dignitary, the word "incorrect" should be substituted for the word "false." But with all this plain speaking and plain writing there was not the least particle of malice. If he thought he had wronged any one, he did not wait for a remonstrance in order to make amends. There are two very pleasing instances in his life of his anxiety to apologize.

During the elections in the summer of 1852 Lucas, at a

public meeting at Slane, used some expressions about Mr. Walpole, the Home Secretary, which were not favourable to that gentleman's character. He found that he had been completely mistaken. He immediately expressed, through Mr. Serjeant Shee, his great regret for the occurrence, and followed up this expression of regret by a letter from himself to Mr. Walpole, in which he offered to make public reparation in the House of Commons. Mr. Walpole accepted the apology in the most handsome manner, and in his answer to Lucas's letter wrote a sentence which is a noble testimony to the honourable conduct of his opponent:

It is a misfortune [he said] common to all public men to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by those who are not acquainted with them; but it happens to few-I believe I might say to very few-to find an opponent who is generous and just enough voluntarily to make amends for his error as soon as he has discovered it.*

The second instance I will give in the words of Dr. Whitty (now Father Whitty, S.J.), who attended Lucas during his last illness.

Many and warm [writes Father Whitty] as his [Lucas's] public controversies had been, he had no personal feeling against any one. But he felt that he had sometimes been hasty and incautious in writing; and in one instance, remembering that he had thus imprudently expressed himself about the late Duke of Norfolk, then Earl of Arundel and Surrey, he asked me to convey his deep regret and offer of a public apology. As might have been expected, the Earl wrote back a letter of most cordial sympathy and charity, which gave him great comfort. Nor was this charity confined to words; for after the death of Mr. Lucas, hearing that some persons were anxious to contribute to the education of his son, he sent me a handsome donation towards that object.†

These examples of Christian conduct in public men may well have their influence on less conspicuous persons.

Mr. Riethmüller, describing his friend when he was a young man, says: "There was a bashfulness, an almost girlish modesty, about him which strikingly contrasted with the strength and manliness of his character, and with that dauntless courage for which he was at all times distinguished." This is a noble testimony; and in after-life no one ever heard a word from his lips which was inconsistent with that character. But, above all, Lucas was a sincere, practical, and devout Catholic. Removed far as the poles asunder from all hypocritical parade of religion, out of the abundance of his heart his mouth spoke, and

"Life of Frederick Lucas," vol. ii. p. 13. + lbid. p. 453.

it was impossible to be acquainted with him without seeing the firmness of his belief and the reality of his practice. It was in consequence of his writings in the Tablet that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul was established in England. His occupation did not allow him to accept the office of president, which would otherwise have been conferred upon him. But he remained an active member, and regularly visited the poor families given into his charge, and attended the weekly meetings. He was at least a weekly communicant, and had a special devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to the Blessed Mother of God. Poor Chisholm Anstey used to say that if you wanted to see Lucas at his best, and in his most natural state, you should visit him on a Sunday evening. He had been to Holy Communion in the morning, and remained in a state of peace, quiet, and consolation, the Tablet and all disturbing causes having been dismissed from his mind. The news in the daily papers began to agitate him very early in the week, until, according to Anstey, the storm had reached its climax on Thursday afternoon, when he was finishing his "leaders" for the first edition, and did not abate until everything had been arranged for the second edition; on Saturday afternoon he wished to be left to himself to calm down and prepare for confession and Communion, after which he was again in perfect peace with God, his neighbour, and himself.†

*When Lucas declined the office of president, the late Mr. Pagliano was elected, and he continued to hold the office until the year 1852, when he resigned, and Mr. George Blount was elected in his place, and has remained president ever since.

66

His devotion to the Blessed Sacrament having been alluded to, an example may be cited of his zeal in promoting that devotion. A friend of his, several years younger than himself, after they had both been attending a meeting, accompanied him some way on his return to his house at Kensington. While they were walking, Lucas suddenly said to his companion, How often do you go to Communion?" The young man was rather taken aback, but, knowing that the question did not proceed from idle curiosity, but from a worthy motive, took the matter in good part, and gave an answer which, as to the number of times, St. Ignatius would indeed have called good, but hardly what he would have called better, and certainly not what he would have called very much better. Lucas urged his reasons for weekly Communion with that earnestness and perseverance which those who remember him will recollect. The young man held out for some time, but at last gave an answer which he thought would satisfy his friend, saying, "I will, if my confessor shall advise it." But Lucas immediately said, "Who is your confessor?" On being told, he seemed satisfied. On another occasion a friend about his own age told him that, wishing to receive Holy Communion two days running, he had gone to two different chapels for fear it should be noticed that he had done so. In the Tablet of the following Saturday Lucas, without giving the slightest hint to whom he was alluding, dragged in the occurrence into an article as an instance of false