rs. Our host, though a model of strictly Catholic
devoutness, was, so he told me with a smile when the Cardinal had taken
his departure, affected very much as I was. The impression left on both
of us was that, in the Cardinal's character, there must have been a
vein of almost astounding credulity--a credulity which would account for
the readiness with which, as a social reformer, he adopted on many
occasions the wildest exaggerations of agitators.

I was subsequently invited to call on him at the Archbishop's house in
Westminster. During the interview which ensued he revealed intellectual
qualities very different from those which had elicited a furtive smile
even from a Catholic such as his host at Chiswick. We spent most of the
morning in discussing the ultimate difficulties, philosophical,
historical, and scientific, which preclude the modern mind from an
assent to the philosophy of Catholicism. He displayed on this occasion,
a broadness and a balance, if not a profundity of thought, in which many
theologians who call themselves liberals are wanting. He spoke even of
militant atheists, such as Huxley and Tyndall, without any sarcastic
anger or signs of moral reprobation. He spoke of their opinions, not as
sins which demanded chastisement, but simply as intellectual errors
which must be cured by intellectual refutation, rather than by moral
anathemas, and the personal relations subsisting between him and them
were relations--so I have always understood--of mutual amity and
respect.

[Illustration: CARDINAL MANNING]

Of another prominent Catholic, Wilfrid Ward, the same thing may be said.
As a Catholic apologist he was a model of candor and suavity. He was,
moreover, a most agreeable man of the world, among his accomplishments
being that of an admirable mimic. He was, however, best known as an
exponent of Catholic liberalism; and, since I am here concerned only
with recollections of social life, to dwell on him longer would carry me
too far astray.

Out of this last observation there naturally arises another, which
relates to anecdotes or short sketches of individuals as a method of
social history. For certain reasons the scope of this method is limited.
In the first place, the persons whose doings or sayings are commemorated
must be persons who, by their position or reputation, are more or less
self-explanatory to the ear of the general reader. They will otherwise
for the general reader have very little significanc