NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE.

As the circulation of “Fors” increases, the correspondence connected with it must of course, and that within no long time, become unmanageable, except by briefest reference to necessary points in letters of real value; many even of such may not be acknowledged, except with the general thanks which I render in advance to all who write either with the definite purpose of helping me, or of asking explanation of what I have said.

A letter of great interest has thus lain by me since Christmas, though the writer would know I had received it by my instant use of the book he told me of,—Professor Kirk’s. With reference to the statements therein made respecting the robbing of the poor by the rich, through temptation of drink, the letter goes on:—

“But to my mind the enquiry does not reach deep enough. I would know, first, why it is that the workers have so little control over their appetites in this direction? (a) and what the remedy? secondly, why is it that those who wish to drain the working men are permitted to govern them? (b) and what the remedy? (c)

“The answers to each question will, I think, be found to be nearly related.

“The possibility of a watchful and exacting, yet respected, government within a government, is well shown by the existence and discipline of the Society of Friends, of which I am a member. Our society is, no doubt, greatly injured by narrow views of religious truth; yet may it not be that their change from an agricultural to a trading people has done the most to sap the vital strength of their early days? But the tree is not without good fruit yet. A day or two ago the following sentence was extracted by me from a newspaper notice of the death of Robert Charleton, of Bristol:—

“ ‘In him the poor and needy, the oppressed, the fallen and friendless, and the lonely sufferer, ever had a tender and faithful friend. When in trade, he was one of the best employers England could boast. He lived for his people, rather than expected them to live for him; and when he did not derive one penny profit from his factory, but rather lost by it, he still kept the business going, for the sake of his work-people’ ” (d).

The answers to my correspondent’s questions are very simple (a) The workers have in general much more control over their appetites than idle people. But as they are for the most part hindered by their occupation from all rational, and from the best domestic, pleasures, and as manual work naturally makes people thirsty, what can they do but drink? Intoxication is the only Heaven that, practically, Christian England ever displays to them. But see my statements on this point in the fourth lecture in the “Crown of Wild Olive,” when I get it out; (the unfinished notes on Frederick keeping it back a while). (b) Because, as the working men have been for the last fifty years taught that one man is as good as another, they never think of looking for a good man to govern them; and only those who intend to pillage or cheat them will ever come forward of their own accord to govern them; or can succeed in doing so, because as long as they trust in their own sagacity, any knave can humbug them to the top of his bent; while no wise man can teach them anything whatever, contrary to their immediate notions. And the distrust in themselves, which would make them look for a real leader, and believe him, is the last sensation likely to occur to them at present; (see my republican correspondent’s observations on election, in the next letter.) (c) My correspondent twice asks what is the remedy? I believe none, now, but the natural one;—namely, some of the forms of ruin which necessarily cut a nation of blockheads down to the ground, and leave it, thence to sprout again, if there be any life left for it in the earth, or lesson teachable to it by adversity. But, through whatever catastrophes, for any man who cares for the right and sees it, his own duty in the wreck is always clear—to keep himself cool and fearless, and do what is instantly serviceable to the people nearest him, and the best he can, silently, for all. Cotton in one’s ears may be necessary—for we are like soon to have screaming enough in England, as in the wreck of the Northfleet, if that would do any good. (d) Yes, that is all very fine; but suppose that keeping useless work going on, for the sake of the work-people, be not the wisest thing to do for the sake of other people? Of this hereafter. The sentence respecting the corrupting power of trade, as opposed to agriculture, is certainly right, and very notable.

Perhaps some of my readers may be surprised at my giving space to the following comments of my inquisitive Republican acquaintance on my endeavours to answer his questions. But they are so characteristic of the genius of Republicanism, that I esteem them quite one of the best gifts of the Third “Fors” to us: also, the writer is sincere, and might think, if I did not print his answers, that I treated him unfairly. I may afterwards take note of some points in them, but have no time this month.

“We are all covetous. I am ravenously covetous of the means to speak in such type and on such paper as you can buy the use of. ‘Oh that mine enemy would’ give me the means of employing such a printer as you can employ!” (Certainly, he could do nothing worse for you!)

“I find you have published my questions, and your criticism thereon. I thank you for your ‘good-will to man,’ but protest against the levity of your method of dealing with politics.

“You assume that you understand me, and that I don’t understand myself or you. I fully admit that I don’t understand you or myself, and I declare that neither do you understand me. But I will pass hyper-criticism (and, by-the-by, I am not sure that I know what that compound word means; you will know, of course, for me) and tackle your ‘Answers.’

“1. You evade the meaning—the question,—for I cannot think you mean that the ‘world’ or an ‘ocean,’ can be rightfully regarded by legislators as the private property of ‘individuals.’

“2. ‘It never was, and never can be.’ The price of a cocoa-nut was the cost of labour in climbing the tree; the climber ate the nut.

“3. What do you understand by a ‘tax’? The penny paid for the conveyance of a letter is not a tax. Lord Somebody says I must perish of hunger, or pay him for permission to dig in the land on which I was born. He taxes me that he may live without labouring, and do you say ‘of course,’ ‘quite rightfully’?

“4. ?

“5. You may choose a pig or horse for yourself, but I claim the right of choosing mine, even though you know that you could choose better animals for me. By your system, if logically carried out, we should have no elections, but should have an emperor of the world,—the man who knew himself to be the most intelligent of all. I suppose you should be allowed to vote? It is somebody else who must have no political voice? Where do you draw the line? Just below John Ruskin?2 Is a man so little and his polish so much? Men and women must vote, or must not submit. I have bought but little of the polish sold at schools; but, ignorant as I am, I would not yield as the ‘subject’ of thirty million Ruskins, or of the king they might elect without consulting me. You did not let either your brain or your heart speak when you answered that question.

“6. ‘Beneficial.’ I claim the right of personal judgment, and I would grant the exercise of that right to every man and woman.

“7. ‘Untrue.’ Untrue. Lord Somebody consumes, with the aid of a hundred men and women, whom he keeps from productive industry, as much as would suffice to maintain a hundred families. A hundred—yes, a thousand navvies. ‘Destroying’? Did you forget that so many admirals, generals, colonels, and captains, were your law-makers? Are they not professional destroyers? I could fill your pages with a list of other destructive employments of your legislators.

“8. Has the tax gatherer too busy a time of it to attend to the duties added by the establishment of a National Post Office? We remove a thousand toll-bars, and collect the assessment annually with economy. We eat now, and are poisoned, and pay dearly. The buyers and sellers of bread ‘have a busy time of it.’

“9. Thank you for the straightforwardness. But I find you ask me what I mean by a ‘State.’ I meant it as you accepted it, and did not think it economical to bother you or myself with a page of incomplete definitions.

“10. ‘See Munera Pulveris!’ And, ye ‘workmen and labourers,’ go and consult the Emperor of China.

“You speak of a king who killed ‘without wrath, and without doubting his rightness,’ and of a collier who killed with ‘consciousness.’ Glorious, ignorant brute of a king! Degraded, enlightened collier! It is enough to stimulate a patriot to burn all the colleges and libraries. Much learning makes us ignoble! No! it is the much labour and the bad teaching of the labourer by those who never earned their food by the sweat of their own brow.”

1 My dear friend, I can’t bear to interrupt your pretty letter; but, indeed, one should not worship God on one day more, or less, than on another; and one should rest when one needs rest, whether on Sunday or Saturday. ↑

2 My correspondent will perhaps be surprised to hear that I have never in my life voted for any candidate for Parliament, and that I never mean to. ↑

FORS CLAVIGERA.