might have been great with good reason even if he had no more resembled his noblest ancestors than other gentlemen that might be named would naturally become intensified; and therewith, and on the same account, the pride of intellect. As it happens, these are Lord Salisbury's predominant characteristics; and as might be inferred from the very origin of his pride of birth, it is the pride of intellect which is the most vivid and assertive. Now, take these two sentiments alone; understand that they can hardly be stronger in any mind, to remain rational; imagine how such a combination must affect character and conduct; and everything in Lord Salisbury's public life is explained. Only, we must assume a ground-work of what has been called the Italian mind; which is not much of an assumption either. On reasonably close inspection it is seen that the better qualities of that cast of intellect are always at work wherever the noble marquis may be, for the public good. But occasionally some of its other qualities, in harmony with the rest but much less admirable, appear also; and it is a mighty pity that the use of them is not perceived to be quite anachronistic. It was all very well in the sixteenth century. That sort of thing was even necessary in old days, perhaps; but it comes to no good now. It would be absurd, of course, to suppose that the conduct of foreign affairs can be carried on in public like a cricket match. Concealments there must be; sometimes there must be that kind of deceit which is called putting off the scent; and the business of diplomacy is such that the necessity most often arises upon affairs of the highest importance. All that is understood. But it is possible to use these practices to excess, without need, and merely as part of the refinements of the game; and when that is done by a statesman in our time and country, the result is to place between nation and minister a distance which Lord Salisbury must have been very conscious of more than once. The like of it is often seen in domestic life; when wife and husband go on together in comfort enough, though each is never long unconscious of the void that opened between them when some selfrevealing word was spoken. It is unnecessary to dwell on the occasions when the revealing word was uttered by Lord Salisbury, but to put them out of sight in a sketch of character would be as if a portrait painter drew a floating scarf over that part of the canvas where the mouth should be. Light in themselves, perhaps, these selfrevelations are often significant of funda mentals; and what was signified in Lord Salisbury's case was a preference, evidently rooted in character and tradition, for carrying on a certain kind of public business in ways more ancient than lovely. Another illustration of the same prefer. ence has been much less remarked upon, and, therefore, may be noticed here. It is to be found in the famous “large maps speech. At the time when that speech was delivered, the country was agitated to what anybody may understand as a most inconvenient degree by the Russian encroachments towards India. In all likelihood, it was impossible for the government to satisfy the public demand for active means of prevention; and so what Lord Salisbury did was to declare that the demand was based upon a ridiculously ignorant conception of the facts. The prevalent fears, he said, arose entirely from the irrational practice of studying small maps; which, to the eyes of those who were so absurdly content with them, reduced boundless wastes and enormous mountain ranges to the limit of a long day's walk. But statesmen studied large maps, and therefore understood that alarm at the Russian advance to India was merely ludicrous. Nothing could be more ingenious or more telling than that speech; and nothing more disingenuous and deluding. But it served its purpose to a miracle. There was a burst of laughter throughout the country, so glad were we to believe in the pathless hills and deserts vast revealed by the Foreign Office maps; and the government was left quite undisturbed about the Russian advance till a few years after, when the fighting at Penjdeh declared that Lord Salisbury's large-map revelations were mythical, and that the Russian advance up to the Afghan frontier had been accomplished out of hand. As a first result of this discovery, it seemed for a time that war was almost inevitable. But it was avoided; and avoided, let us hasten to add, on the most honorable terms that could have been hoped for under the circumstances, by the sagacity and firmness of Lord Salisbury himself. According to the natural order of things, the strength and ambition of Lord Salisbury's intellect came out before its subtlety. They came out not long after he entered the House of Commons (he was Lord Robert Cecil and twenty-three at the time when Lord Salisbury was sent to that time), where he soon gave proof of Constantinople, which the rest of the Cabhis very remarkable powers and of a cer- inet was unaware of. This was in 1876. tain aggressive courage in the use of Lord Salisbury was despatched out of them. This was the most noticeable the Cabinet- he was Indian secretary thing about his quarrel with Mr. Disraeli. then to see what British influence could But that Lord Robert should stand up to do to avert a threatened attack on Turkey his political chief when he did was less by the Russians. He had no sooner remarkable than it might have seemed at started than signs of an ambitious indeother times; for at that period there was pendency of action appeared in his cona great deal of discontent with Mr. Dis- duct. Somewhat later, his carriage at raeli amongst influential Conservatives Constantinople was such as to excite asa discontent largely mixed with contempt. tonishment amongst his fellow countrymen It was not surprising, therefore, that a at home, who could not reconcile it with young patrician, conscious of great parts the understood sympathies and policies of and gifted with a full share of fighting the government. And their doubts were eloquence, should dream of pushing Mr. so far justified that Lord Salisbury's conDisraeli out of the leadership and taking duct was equally unintelligible to his own his place. Yet that Lord Robert Cecil colleagues. Possibly it was only his should hope to beat Mr. Disraeli on the methods of going about the business he floor of the House of Commons argued a had in hand that looked dubious; but confidence which, though not without however that may be, warm remonstrances merit, was hardly justified. He fought on were sent out to him from Downing good conscientious grounds, but in the Street, complaining that he seemed to be end it was not Mr. Disraeli who received not only exceeding his instructions but the most "punishment "in that encounter; departing from them. This little episode, which was marked on the side of his the details of which have never been laid youthful opponent by precisely the same before the public, is recalled to illustrate merits and defects that distinguish his Lord Salisbury's masterfulness in a posicontroversial speeches to this day. The tion of advantage. That position he cerquarrel engendered much bitterness, and tainly enjoyed at Constantinople; for of the memory of it was lasting. Fortu- course he knew that an envoy from the nately, it is not the habit of public men in Cabinet is not to be controlled or recalled England to cherish the rancors that do as easily as another man might be. At arise from time to time in political con- the same time he may have been right in flict. The relations between these two what he did, and wiser than those whom men became very close afterwards, and, he astonished and offended; but that is no doubt, beneficially; but if the truth not a question for discussion in a paper must be told, much that we have heard like this, though to put it out of view since Lord Beaconsfield's death of the would be unfair to the political character affectionate trust reposed in the younger we are dealing with. Neither are we to statesman by the elder is mere invention. forget that when some time afterwards other important ministers departed from a Cabinet long and deeply troubled by differences of opinion, Lord Salisbury remained with Mr. Disraeli and worked in harmony with him to the end. When the shah made his tour in Europe he was accompanied by a large number of Persian gentlemen, who were no doubt supposed to have been selected for their merits and as a mark of honor and confidence. Some of them were; but others were chosen because his Majesty thought it wouldn't be wise to leave them at home; wiser to carry them about with him and keep them under his eye. Should this story apply to the appearance of Lord Salisbury in Mr. Disraeli's 1874 administration (which many wondered at), let it be remembered that the Disraelian motive, like the shah's, may have been groundless. If so, however, good reason for mistrusting Lord Salisbury soon reappeared; unless, indeed, there was an understanding between him and his chief, at On Lord Derby's resignation in 1878 his noble kinsman (who publicly likened him on one occasion to Titus Oates) took the foreign secretaryship; and it is necessary to recall the fact that Lord Salisbury signalized his appearance in that rôle by publishing a declaration of policy that won boundless plaudits for its boldness and the defiant patriotism that spoke in every line. It had as great an effect on the country as the small maps speech an immense effect; and almost immediately afterwards proof appeared that it was equally trustworthy. No doubt one good result flowed from the publication of | into the House of Lords, the forced resig this manifesto: it restarted the govern-nation of his secretaryship, we must needs ment well after some weakening seces hope that the other thing does not account sions. But the presumption must be that for it. its writer knew that the lofty, defiant spirit Whether calculation (ie., judicious calof that despatch would not or could not be culation, sound inference) or whether mere carried out; for there was never a mo- weakness and weariness of home affairs ment when the carrying of it out was at- explains Lord Salisbury's indifference to tempted. It was not that, however, which the sapping of his own party of late, is an chilled the relations of the country with open question. The probability is that he Lord Salisbury. It is a sensible country, is too much absorbed in foreign affairs to and never loses sight of the fact that the care for what happens in England; or noblest aims and endeavors of its rulers rather that, to his view, the maintenance are sometimes confronted by insuperable of a certain line of foreign policy is so difficulties. The chill came with the (sur- profoundly important, the disturbance of reptitious) publication of a surrendering it would be so fatal a misfortune for the secret agreement with Russia, which must whole empire, that he willingly assents to have been concluded immediately after any means of keeping out the dreaded disthe publication of the defiant manifesto turber which his party managers represent above mentioned; and yet more chilling as hopeful. That, and not mere weakness was the daringly deceptive way in which before the "bluffing" of Liberal Unionist Lord Salisbury answered an inquiry Radicals, may be the explanation, and about it in the House of Lords. would give no information to foreign governments, who of course know all that he could tell us on such points; while it is extremely likely that he would secure a support at home which he forfeits by silence and secrecy, and which may not be made up to him by the dubious ingenuities of his colleagues in the House of Commons. But then, to abandon silence and secrecy, to limit the field of ingenious alternative and things of that sort, would not accord with Lord Salisbury's idea of statesmanship, and it would destroy his enjoyment of the game. Palmerston's way is not his way. probably is. But if so, we have another It was mainly on this account, perhaps, illustration of the Elizabethan Italianism that there was no unanimity of choice of Lord Salisbury's mind. But for that, when the Conservatives had to appoint a there seems to be no reason why he should leader after Lord Beaconsfield's decease. not take his fellow-countrymen into his But other considerations were at work; confidence, explain the present position of not the least of which was that Lord Bea- Great Britain in relation to other powers, consfield was understood to have made and say why he thinks the incoming of a known a decided preference for Sir Staf Gladstone government would probably be ford Northcote, which we believe was the followed by untoward complications and fact. What contentions and heart-burn-threatening movements. In doing so he ings there were before the leadership question was settled is known to many, and to dwell upon them would be neither pleasant nor profitable. The stronger man took the succession - perhaps both the wiser and the stronger, though that is doubtful. Lord Salisbury's management of affairs since then, and his own part in the more striking incidents of his administration, are fresh in every memory; and they are seen to agree with all reasonable anticipation from his previous "record." A strong intellect does not always imply strong character, but wherever weakness appears the symptoms may really arise from nothing more than suppleness and subtlety. This, perhaps, is why even those who are able to observe Lord Salisbury from a comparatively narrow distance find it so difficult to make up their minds about him. The way in which he yielded to the extravagant and humiliating dictation of Lord Randolph Churchill at one time may be explained either by radical weakness or the other thing. And when we think of Sir Stafford Northcote's deposition, the cruel hoisting of him (a comparatively poor country gentleman) However, it may be that Lord Salisbury will have something to say to the country about foreign affairs yet. It will be surprising, indeed, if he do not speak his mind on that subject before the elections, since the country is quite prepared to hear that certain European powers look to the result of the approaching contest as determining their own course of action; which may be pleasant or otherwise. Meanwhile the general belief is that Lord Salisbury has conducted the business of the Foreign Office with singular ability; the proof of which is that, like other European nations, we are at peace. The cession of Heligoland remains a puzzle for Britons, and there again the question arises whether weakness under pressure or supple subtlety accounted for a very remarkable transaction. The truth seems to be, however, that what Lord Randolph Churchill was to Lord Salisbury at home, the German emperor has been to him abroad; and though the prestige of both has dwindled it is not certain that both have lost the power to "bounce." For the rest, all that was troublesome in our dealings with Germany in Africa has lost importance, mainly through the superior wisdom of our traders; and an impartial review of the quarrel with Portugal inspires belief that Lord Salisbury is capable of conducting a difficult quarrel (as that was, much more than it appeared to the public) with skill and courage. From The Fortnightly Review. MENTAL IMAGERY. I. WHAT takes place in our mind when we think? In other words, what is thought? The question seems at first sight very difficult to answer, for thought is an internal phenomenon, impossible to take hold of, to touch, and to measure. Nevertheless, contemporary psychologists have succeeded by different means, of which some are highly ingenious, to study in its every detail the mechanism of human thought. I should like to offer a brief account of these researches, considered by competent persons as being the most important, the most pregnant, and most precise in the whole domain of psychology. The nature and character of ideas and the manner in which they vary in different individuals; the special parts of the brain The laborious statesman is not always in which are situated the organs of ideathe most successful, but industry is a tion; the relations uniting the idea with merit, and commonly a safeguard. Lord external perception and with hallucina. Salisbury is a hard-working man, who tion; all this has been determined with a measures work not by the hours of labor great appearance of accuracy. Much, but by the outcome thereof. He has been therefore, has been done in this connecsecretary for India twice-on one occation; and although much still remains to sion in no humdrum times, for of course be done, the sum of our knowledge has inthe whole future of India had to be con- creased very remarkably since the days of sidered and reconsidered when the Russo- Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, with Turkish war was impending, and while it their speculations on the nature of ideas. went on; and the report of those who Nothing is more interesting for the know is that he served the department philosopher than to follow attentively with a wise and laborious care. No class throughout the course of history the evoof men in England produces a larger pro-lution of this great psychological inquiry. portion of first-rate men of business than It is not my intention to enter into any her greater nobles. Lord Salisbury's minute details in the matter; to point out aptitude for business has been strikingly the principal stages of the progression illustrated in the management of railway will be sufficient, dwelling more particuaffairs, and Lord Derby himself is hardly larly on the methods employed in order to more competent to become his own stew-arrive at a knowledge of the truth. These ard. At the present moment he is steward for something more than an estate in houses and land; and we should be more than satisfied with him as foreign minister if we could be sure that he is never guilty in diplomatic intercourse of the astounding errors he commits in public speech, if we could convince ourselves that his flexibility is not weakness, and if he did not think it his part as a great statesman and a Cecil to move in a mysterious way his wonders to perform. Simple strength and a candid carriage, that is what we love in England. Suppleness, subtleties, wheels within wheels, workings behind the veil - these are not liked so much, even though the result is not inferior to that which open, bold, straightforward common sense achieves. means or methods have been very varied, very unforeseen, and, as was said above, in many cases of the most ingenious nature; each one of the writers who have associated their name with the study of mental imagery having only succeeded in advancing our knowledge of the question by inventing some personal method different from that employed by his predecessors. In devoting a few words of description to each method in turn, it will be seen which have been defective, and which, on the other hand, have been more especially efficient. The method made use of by the earlier psychologists is well known under the name of "introspection." It was practised with considerable intelligence and penetration by the thinkers of the Scotch show the material nature of images. Thus he compares the phenomenon of the mental image to the faithful reproduction of an object in a mirror, or to the reflection of the sun in water. He carries these similitudes to such a length as to say that if it be desired to see a thing clearly, one must have a clear mental vision of it. To fail to understand some difficult thing, as, for example, a complicated piece of reasoning, is equivalent to seeing it badly. Both Locke and Berkeley, later, adopted and extended the application of this theory of Hobbes'. school, and, prior to them, by the philoso- | great number of comparisons calculated to phers whom I have named above, Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. To this day it is the only means of research employed by a large number of philosophers who are unwilling or unable to institute regular experiments. The method of introspection is very simple: it consists, as the name indicates, in analyzing one's own interior processes of thought. In order to study some particular mental phenomenon, such as a wish or a recollection, for example, the thinker inquires of himself what his own thoughts are on the subject. As a method of mental inquiry, introspection has its advantages and its drawbacks. But, however it may be judged, it is one of the indispensable processes of psychology; for without it we should never have known what an idea is, or a sentiment, or a psychological phenomenon of any kind. We must have felt and studied a sentiment in ourselves before we can expect to know what it is. Thus who can tell what jealousy is, or love, if he has never been either in love or jealous? These phenomena are not open to external observation, nor can their effects be appreciated in others till we have learnt to recognize the same by looking carefully into our own bosoms. Introspection, then, was the path followed by the earlier English thinkers in their attempt to discover the true nature of thought. Expressions such as the following occur very frequently in their works: "If one examines the operations of one's own mind," or "if we look into ourselves," etc. Nowhere in their writ ings is any allusion made to direct experimentation. This introspection of theirs did not lead them entirely astray. Through it they learned one most interesting fact, since amply confirmed, but which we at the present day interpret in a somewhat different sense; for all these earlier psychologists, in seeking to explain the nature of thought, make use of the same striking comparison; they compare thought to vision. What does thinking about a thing mean? inquired Hobbes; and he replied that to think about it was to see an image of it. What, again, is an image? It is the representation of some visible thing. Thought, then, would seem to consist in the mental reproduction of a visual act. To think is to see, ulteriorly, ideas of objects in one's mind, in the same way as one sees exterior objects with the eye. In order that no doubt should subsist as to the truth of his opinion, Hobbes affords a Hume went a little further in psychological observation, or, at all events, deduced from it certain logical consequences of singular boldness. His predecessors had merely concluded that thought is interior vision. Hume stated further that whatever cannot be seen with either the interior or the exterior vision does not exist. It is for this reason that he does not recognize the existence of any abstraction, such as, for example, the relation of cause to effect, or the existence of the ego apart from the phenomenal. One cannot see the casual relation, says Hume, nor can one represent it to one's mind under any visible form; consequently it is neither a sensation nor an idea; consequently it does not exist. The non-existence of the ego is demonstrated by a similar process of reasoning. My object not being to attempt a philosophical discussion, I shall devote no part of my space to examining these opinions of Hume's. I have merely been desirous of showing, after Mr. Fraser, from whose pages I have borrowed many of the preceding details, that a simple psychological question, like that of the nature of ideas, may serve, so to speak, as the keystone of a vast philosophic structure. Modern psychological inquiry has shown that there is a large share of truth in the conclusions of Hobbes and his successors. These conclusions, however, are not entirely exact. The philosophers in question, by employing the method of introspection solely, fell into a singular delusion. They failed to perceive that thought may take on a number of different forms, and that in reality individuals differ quite as much in their manner of thinking as in the proportions of their frame and the shape of their features. Studying only their own mental processes, Hobbes, Locke, and the others named came to regard as general certain phenomena which in reality were peculiar to themselves. |