present, since his works do not rank now quite so high as they did a quarter of a century ago. Nevertheless, his works, for the influence exercised when they were written, must always be regarded as foremost. He was an honest, an active, and a fearless thinker and writer, when those qualities were almost singular in their rarity. Critics there are who style his logical clear-headedness as wanting depth; as the transparent rind which showed the fruit inside, but that was all; but how this view agrees with his acknowledged acuteness and originality, must be decided by those who hold the scales of the future.

One word more and we have done: There are not wanting writers, and their opinion has been circulated in a High Church organ, who speak of the Irish papers writing fulsome eulogy about the beloved Archbishop. Hitherto we thought fulsome eulogy was an essence that was only grateful to the living lion-the open-handed prince who had yet his favours to bestow! So we add this grudged and unwilling testimony to the universality of praise which has embalmed the dead, better than was ever king in the tombs of the Pharoahs.

NOVELS AND NOVEL-READING.

BY HERBERT GRAHAM.

"Some works instruct through the head, some through the heart. The last reach the widest circle, and often produce the most genial influence on the character."-SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON.

THERE is a class of people in this strange world of ours who seldom, if ever, allow a smile to radiate their countenance, deeming it, if not altogether sinful, at least altogether unbecoming, to wear any other expression than that of impenetrable gloom. This class is not by any means a small one, and those of whom it is composed are generally very sensible, wellmeaning persons. There are others to whom the bare mention of a novel is sufficient to alarm them for your future well-being-who look upon novel readers as travelling the direct road to perdition, and upon novel writers as emissaries of a gentleman who shall be nameless, commissioned to entice victims to destruction. If you ask any of the class referred to whether he has read the latest novel, ten to one he either returns no answer to your question, or takes the opportunity of descanting upon the sinfulness of indulging in such reading. Not long since a friend of mine stepped into a railway carriage, and in order to while away the time, pulled out of his pocket, and began to read, one of Sir Walter Scott's novels-" Guy Mannering," I think. He had scarcely done so when a gentleman of his acquaintance also entered the carriage, and they began a conversation. With a glance at the novel which was lying upon my friend's knee, the gentleman asked, in apparent astonishment :

"Because I don't consider it right to read fiction. I should have thought a sensible person like you would have known better."

"Much obliged to you, I'm sure. But do you say you have never

read a novel?"

"Never, sir."

"Never read Scott, Bulwer Lytton, or Dickens?"

"Never."

Upon my word, I pity you. You certainly are not to be envied. Pray, upon what grounds do you object to reading novels ?"

The

"Upon several grounds. Novels are lies from beginning to end. Being lies, the time occupied in reading them is time misspent. circumstances which they narrate are unreal, and consequently they raiso in the minds of their readers false notions of life, and the duties of life

which every person has to discharge. They raise the passions and so injure the moral character. Once begin to read them and the desire grows stronger and stronger, and at last the power to refrain from them is completely lost.. Then, what is their aim? Have they any aim? It cannot be to instruct, for there can be little or no instruction derived from the love passages in the ideal life of a hero or heroine of romance, whose sickly sentimentalities must appear to every sensible person little else than disgusting."

"You consider, then, that it is only sensible persons who abstain from novel-reading? Allow me to differ from you. With regard to your objections to novels and novel-reading, might I ask from what source you have derived the information upon which your opinion is grounded. You say you have never read a novel; I cannot, therefore, accept your objec tions as original."

“Well, when I was much younger than I now am I did read a few novels."

"Oh, indeed! By what authors, pray? for you say you have never read either Scott, Bulwer Lytton, or Dickens."

"The novels which I read appeared in weekly periodicals. authors' names I can't remember."

The

"At least you will remember the titles of your favourite periodicals?" 'Billingsgate Miscellany was one of them. I think the Love and Murder Journal was another, but really I forget all about them now."

"Were all the novels that you read only such as appeared in these weekly periodicals?"

"Yes, I think so."

"And you place such men as Scott, and the others I have mentioned, in the same category with the authors who write the 'Romances of Real Life' for Billingsgate Miscellany, and others of its class?"

"I consider all novels as one class, and that the same objections apply to all of them in a more or less degree; some may be better written than others, but still those objections which I have already stated apply to all of these."

"Indeed! you are a medical man. Do you consider that all doctors are to be classed together? Do you place yourself on the same level with Dr. Cure'emall; or what would you say of the man who spoke of you and Dr. Cure'emall in the same breath?"

"There are various grades in the medical profession. Many doctors are quacks; Dr. Cure'emall among the number."

"I entertain the same opinion; there are good and bad. But don't you think it just as likely that there are quacks in the literary profession as in the medical?"

"Certainly not."

"Very well then; in the meantime I've no more to say on the subject; but if you have no objection, I will be happy to lend you this volume, and when you have finished reading it, I will then, with your

permission, and if you still entertain the same opinion, be ready to answer the objections you have stated to novels and novel-reading."

“I thank you, but I have no time to waste in reading trash. But I go out here. I bid you good-bye."

"Good-bye; and I hope, for your own sake, you may alter your opinion before long."

I have often met with people, sensible, well educated, and rather intelligent on the whole, resembling Dr. in the opinions which he entertained on novels and novel-reading. It is perhaps worth while to examine these objections, and see what foundation they have in fact.

First then, "Novels are lies." This argument, if such it can be called, is considered by many opponents of novel-reading as one of their strongest. Now, before going any farther, it will be as well to consider what is a lie. A lie, as I hold it, is an untruth told with the intention to deceive. If this definition of a lie be correct, then the objection cannot hold good, because novels are not written and given to the world as circumstantially true, and so the intention to deceive is wanting. Novels are creations of the author's brain, just as paintings and poems are the expressions of the painter's and poet's conceptions. And here it may be remarked, as somewhat paradoxical, that the people who object, upon principle, to novels and novel-reading, have no hesitation whatever, in the general case, to adorn their rooms with paintings, or to read poetry. Novels are simply pictures of life, as it was, or as it is. Doubtless, there are some romancists who attempt to picture life as they consider it should be, but I scarcely need do more than refer to them. These pictures of life are not believed by any one to be circumstantially true. No one believes that there ever existed, in real flesh and blood, the actual men and women whose characters the novelist delineates. Novelists draw from life just as painters draw their figures from models. They take from around them some characters by whose aid their stories are worked out. The objection, therefore, that novels are lies falls to the ground, being totally untenable. If it were otherwise, upon the same principle, poetry and painting would be equally lies, and the time devoted to their study would be "time misspent."

But it is also urged by the objectors to novels and novel-reading, that the circumstances which novels relate are unreal, and that consequently they raise in the minds of their readers false notions of life, and the duties of life which every person is called upon to discharge. To some extent this is no doubt true. There are many novels which lay aside the real for the ideal. But this cannot be applied to novels generally. On the contrary, all skilful novelists prefer depicting real every-day life to roaming at will among ideal scenes, and drawing ideal characters. Some prefer to write of life as it was, but the vast majority of our most celebrated novelists choose rather to write of the life with which they are surrounded-life as it is. Whichever of these two be chosen, there is nothing whatever which can be objected to it in this respect. History familiarizes us with the

state of society in times gone by. From it we may learn if we will, what we also find reflected in the novelist's pages. No one will deny the great advantages which are to be gained by a diligent study of history. But history has not attractions for all people. There are many people who cannot bring their minds to bear upon such a subject, for it must be confessed that history is often a very dry and tedious study unless the mind is, by other occupations and pursuits, adapted for, or capable of being brought to bear upon subjects of a weighty character. The occupations, the daily life of a vast number of people unfits them almost entirely from engaging in such studies with any degree of pleasure; and unless we can take an interest and a pleasure in any study, the time devoted to it is almost time thrown away, for the benefits to be derived will be incommensurate with the time occupied. Doubtless, the mind may be trained to take an interest in heavy reading, but it is not every one who will put himself to the trouble necessary for effecting this. In the pages of fiction, however, such information will be found divested of its unattractive garb, and clothed in a manner at once pleasing and fascinating. That there are some people who form false notions of life from reading fiction, is doubtless true, but these are exceptional cases, which can scarcely be set against the fiction. Such people would be almost as likely to form false notions of life from history. Many and various are the forms in which Titmouseism and Dundrearyism develop themselves, but in very few cases are these the result of novel-reading. Indeed, I question if they are ever attributable to that cause.

In novels which picture life as it is, we find only a reflex of what one may see almost every day of his life. From these also some people may form false ideas, but it is an exceptional case when they are other than harmless. From the very best of things there will occasionally be drawn what was never intended to be conveyed, and what in the ordinary case is not extracted. Quod cibus est aliis, aliis est acre venenum, may be applied to novels as well as to many other things, in themselves good and harmless.

The objection that novels rouse the passions and so injure the moral character is, in our time and in this country, almost totally inapplicable. English literature, in all its branches, is now of the purest kind. There was a time when such an objection was applicable to works of fiction, but not to such works alone; but that time has now gone by. Nowadays one can sit down to read a novel without the slightest fear of injury to his moral character. There are perhaps exceptions even to this, but excep tions are found to every rule. Immoral novels are so yery exceptional, and when they do turn up, their character becomes so universally known, that any person who sits down to their perusal can scarcely be ignorant of what he will find to be the character of the book. The fact, admitting it to be a fact, that modern novels having an immoral tendency are occasionally to be met with, is not a sufficient reason for denouncing all novels as immoral.