NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE.
In an interesting letter “for self and mates” a Manchester working man asks me the meaning of “Fors Clavigera” (surely enough explained in II. 4?) and whether I mean by vulgarity “commonness,” and why I say that doing anything in a hurry is vulgar. I do not mean by vulgarity, commonness. A daisy is common; and a baby, not uncommon. Neither are vulgar. Has my correspondent really no perception of the difference between good breeding and vulgarity?—if he will tell me this, I will try to answer him more distinctly: meantime, if in the Salford Library there is a copy of my ‘Modern Painters,’ let him look at Vol. V., Part IX., Chap. VII.
He says also that he and his mates must do many things in a hurry.
I know it. But do they suppose such compulsion is a law of Heaven? or that, if not, it is likely to last?
I was greatly pleased by Mr. Affleck’s letter, and would have told him so; only he gave me his address in Gordon Street, without telling me of what town. His post-mark was Galashiels, which I tried, and Edinburgh; but only with embarrassment to Her Majesty’s service.
Another communication, very naïve and honest, came from a Republican of literary tastes, who wished to assist me in the development of my plans in ‘Fors;’ and, in the course of resulting correspondence, expressed his willingness to answer any questions I might wish to put to him. I answered that I imagined myself, as far as I thought needful for me, acquainted with his opinions; but that perhaps he might wish to know something more definite about mine, and that if he liked to put any questions to me, I would do my best to reply intelligibly. Whereupon, apparently much pleased, he sent me the following eleven interrogations, to each of which I have accordingly given solution, to the best of my ability.
1. “Can the world—its oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, continents, islands, or portions thereof, be rightfully treated by human legislators as the ‘private property’ of individuals?”
Ans. Certainly. Else would man be more wretched than the beasts, who at least have dens of their own.
2. “Should cost be the limit of price?”
Ans. It never was, and never can be. So we need not ask whether it should be.
3. “Can one man rightfully tax another man?”
Ans. By all means. Indeed, I have seldom heard of anybody who would tax himself.
4. “Can a million men rightfully tax other men?”
Ans. Certainly, when the other men are not strong enough to tax the million.
5. “Should not each adult inhabitant of a country (who performs service equivalent in value to his or her use of the service of other inhabitants) have electoral rights granted equal to those granted to any other inhabitant?”
Ans. Heaven forbid! It is not everybody one would set to choose a horse, or a pig. How much less a member of Parliament?
6. “Is it not an injustice for a State to require or try to enforce, allegiance to the State from self-supporting adults, who have never been permitted to share in the framing or endorsing of the laws they are expected to obey?”
Ans. Certainly not. Laws are usually most beneficial in operation on the people who would have most strongly objected to their enactment.
7. “The Parliament of this country is now almost exclusively composed of representatives of the classes whose time is mostly occupied in consuming and destroying. Is this statement true? If true—is it right that it should be so?”
Ans. The statement is untrue. A railway navvy consumes, usually, about six times as much as an average member of Parliament; and I know nothing which members of Parliament kill, except time, which other people would not kill, if they were allowed to. It is the Parliamentary tendency to preservation, rather than to destruction, which I have mostly heard complained of.
8. “The State undertakes the carriage and delivery of letters. Would it be just as consistent and advisable for the State to undertake the supply of unadulterated and wholesome food, clean and healthy dwellings, elementary, industrial, and scientific instruction, medical assistance, a national paper money, and other necessities?”
Ans. All most desirable. But the tax-gatherers would have a busy life of it!
9. “Should not a State represent the co-operation of all the people of a country, for the benefit of all?”
Ans. You mean, I suppose, by “a State” the Government of a State. The Government cannot “represent” such co-operation; but can enforce it, and should.
10. “Is the use of scarce metals as material of which to make ‘currency,’ economical and beneficent to a nation?”
Ans. No; but often necessary: see ‘Munera Pulveris,’ chap. iii.
11. “Is that a right condition of a people, their laws, and their money which makes ‘interest’ for use of money legal and possible to obtain?”
Ans. See ‘Fors Clavigera,’ throughout, which indeed I have written to save you the trouble of asking questions on such subjects.
It might be well if my Republican correspondent for his own benefit, would write down an exact definition of the following terms used by him:—
- 1. “Private property.”
- 2. “Tax.”
- 3. “State.”
2 The reason of this honour to Sir Walter was that he had been the first English knight who rode into France after the king had quartered the Fleur-de-Lys. ↑
3 I omit much, without putting stars, in these bits of translation. By the way, in last ‘Fors,’ p. 21, note, for “insert,” read “omit.” ↑
4 Not unfairly; only having to fight for their Calais instead of getting in for a bribe. ↑
5 Besogne. “The thing that has to be done”—word used still in household service, but impossible to translate; we have no such concentrated one in English. ↑
6 The passage is entirely spoiled in Johnes’ translation by the use of the word ‘gallant’ instead of ‘gentle’ for the French ‘gentil.’ The boy was not yet nineteen, (born at Woodstock, June 15, 1330,) and his father thirty-six: fancy how pretty to see the one waiting on the other, with the French knights at his side. ↑
7 Sacred fillet, or “diadema,” the noblest, as the most ancient, crown. ↑
FORS CLAVIGERA.
