NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE.
I. Together with the Spectator’s telescopic and daring views of the Land question, given in last Fors, I may as well preserve its immediate and microscopic approval of our poor little practice upon it at Hincksey:—
“Adam and Jehu.—It is very vexatious, but one never gets fairly the better of Mr. Ruskin. Sometimes he lets his intellect work, and fires off pamphlet after pamphlet on political economy, each new one more ridiculous than the last, till it ceases to be possible even to read his brochures without condemning them as the utterances of a man who cannot lose a certain eloquence of expression, BUT WHO CANNOT THINK AT ALL; and then, again, he lets his genius work, and produces something which raises the admiration of the reader till every folly which preceded it is forgotten. There never was a more absurd paper published than his on the duty of the State towards unmarried couples, and never perhaps one wiser than his lecture on ‘Ambition,’ reviewed in our columns on the 18th of October, 1873. Just recently he has been pushing some plans for an agricultural Utopia, free of steam-engines and noises and everything modern, in which the inconsequence of his mind is as evident as its radical benevolence; and now he has, we believe, done the whole youth of Oxford a substantial service. He has turned, or rather tried to turn, the rage for athletics into a worthy channel.”—Spectator, May 30, 1874. [239]
The above paragraph may, I think, also be, some day, interesting as a summary of the opinions of the British press on Fors Clavigera; and if my last month’s letter should have the fortune to displease, or discomfort, any British landlord, my alarmed or offended reader may be relieved and pacified by receiving the Spectatorial warrant at once for the inconsequence of my mind, and for its radical benevolence.
II. The following paragraphs from a leading journal in our greatest commercial city, surpass, in folly and impudence, anything I have yet seen of the kind, and are well worth preserving:—
“The material prosperity of the country has, notwithstanding, increased, and the revenue returns, comparing as they do against an exceptionally high rate of production and consumption, show that we are fairly holding our own.” Production and consumption of what, Mr. Editor, is the question, as I have told you many a time. A high revenue, raised on the large production and consumption of weak cloth and strong liquor, does not show the material prosperity of the country. Suppose you were to tax the production of good pictures, good books, good houses, or honest men, where would your revenue be? “Amongst the middle classes, exceptionally large fortunes have been rapidly realized here and there, chiefly in the misty regions of ‘finance,’ [What do you mean by misty, Mr. Editor? It is a Turnerian and Titianesque quality, not in the least properly applicable to any cotton-mill business.] and instances occur from day to day of almost prodigal expenditure in objects of art [Photographs of bawds, do you mean, Mr. Editor? I know no other objects of art that are multiplying,—certainly not Titians, by your Spectator’s decision.] and luxury, the display of wealth in the metropolis being more striking year by year.
“Turning from these dazzling exhibitions, the real source of congratulation must be found in the existence of a broad and [240]solid foundation for our apparent prosperity; and this, happily, is represented in the amelioration of the condition of the lower orders of society.”—Indeed!
“The adjustment of an increasing scale of wages has not been reduced to scientific principles, and has consequently been more or less arbitrary and capricious. From time to time it has interfered with the even current of affairs, and been resented as an unfair and unwarranted interception of profits in their way to the manufacturer’s pockets.
“Whilst ‘financial’ talent has reaped liberal results from its exercise, the steady productions of manufacturers have left only moderate returns to their producers, and importers of raw material have, as a rule, had a trying time. The difficulties of steamship owners have been tolerably notorious, and the enhancement of sailing vessels is an instance of the adage that ‘It is an ill wind that blows no one any good.’
“For our railways, the effects of a most critical half-year can scarcely be forecast. Increased expenses have not, it is to be feared, been met by increased rates and traffics, and the public may not have fully prepared themselves for diminished dividends. With the Erie and the Great Western of Canada undergoing the ordeal of investigation, and the Atlantic and Great Western on the verge of insolvency, it is not surprising that American and colonial railways are at the moment out of favour. If, however, they have not made satisfactory returns to their shareholders, they have been the media of great profit to operators on the stock exchanges; and some day we shall, perhaps, learn the connection existing between the well or ill doing of a railway per se, and the facility for speculation in its stock.”—Liverpool Commercial News, of this year. I have not kept the date.
III. A young lady’s letter about flowers and books, I gratefully acknowledge, and have partly answered in the text of this Fors; [241]the rest she will find answered up and down afterwards, as I can; also a letter from a youth at New Haven in Connecticut has given me much pleasure. I am sorry not to be able to answer it more specially, but have now absolutely no time for any private correspondence, except with personal friends,—and I should like even those to show themselves friendly rather by setting themselves to understand my meaning in Fors, and by helping me in my purposes, than by merely expressing anxiety for my welfare, not satisfiable but by letters, which do not promote it.
IV. Publishing the subjoined letter from Mr. Sillar, I must now wish him good success in his battle, and terminate my extracts from his letters, there being always some grave points in which I find myself at issue with him, but which I have not at present any wish farther to discuss:—
“I am right glad to see you quote in your July Fors, from the papers which the Record newspaper refused to insert, on the plea of their ‘confusing two things so essentially different as usury and interest of money.’
“I printed them, and have sold two,—following your advice and not advertising them.
“You wrong me greatly in saying that I think the sin of usury means every other. What I say is that it is the only sin I know which is never denounced from the pulpit; and therefore I have to do that part of the parson’s work. I would much rather be following the business to which I was educated; but so long as usury is prevalent, honourable and profitable employments in that business are impossible. It may be conducted honourably, but at an annual loss; or it may be conducted profitably at the expense of honour. I can no longer afford the former, still less can I afford the latter; and as I cannot be [242]idle, I occupy my leisure, at least part of it, in a war to the knife with that great dragon ‘Debt.’ I war not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers of darkness in high places.”
V. To finish, here is one of the pleasantest paragraphs I ever saw in print:—
“Rope Cordage.—On Saturday last a very interesting experiment was made at Kirkaldy’s Testing Works, Southwark Street, as to the relative strength of hand-spun yarn rope, machine yarn rope, and Russian yarn rope. Mr. Plimsoll, M.P., Captain Bedford Pim, M.P., and others attended the test, which lasted over three hours. There were nine pieces of rope, each 10ft. long, being three of each of the above classes. The ultimate stress or breaking strain of the Russian rope was 11,099 lb., or 1,934 lb. strength per fathom; machine rope, 11,527 lb., or 2,155 lb. per fathom; hand-spun rope, 18,279 lb., or 3,026 lb. per fathom. The ropes were all of 5 in. circumference, and every piece broke clear of the fastenings. The prices paid per cwt. were: Russian rope, 47s.; machine yarn rope, 47s.; hand-spun yarn rope, 44s.—all described as best cordage and London manufacture. It will thus be seen that the hand-made was cheaper by 3s. per cwt., and broke at a testing strength of 7,180 lb. over Russian, and 6,752 lb. over machine-made.”—Times, July 20, 1874. [243]
2 See ‘Modern Painters,’ vol. iii., “The Firmament.” ↑
3 Compare Dante, Purg., end of Canto V. ↑
FORS CLAVIGERA.
