“Leeds, 29th Dec, 1875.
“Sir,—The town, in all probability, took its name from the river
‘Sheaf,’ which flows into the Don.
“Doncaster is a case in point out of hundreds of others. It may be that
the river has been named in recent times, but it is unlikely; for as a
rule a river always has some name by which it is known before any
settlements are made on its banks.”
V. I must now request my reader’s attention somewhat gravely to the
questions in debate between my correspondents at Wakefield; not that
these are in themselves of any importance, but they are of extreme
importance in their general issue. In the first place, observe the
extreme difficulty of writing history. You shall have one impertinent
coxcomb after another in these days, writing constitutional Histories
of England and the like, and telling you all the relationships and all
the motives of Kings and Queens a thousand years dead; and here is
question respecting the immediate ancestor of a living lady, which does
not appear at once or easily determinable; and which I do not therefore
pursue;—here again is question respecting the connection of her husband
with the cases of bribery reported in the subjoined evidence on the
Wakefield election petition, also indeterminable;—here are farther two
or three questions respecting the treatment of his workmen, respecting
which the evidence is entirely conflicting; and finally, here is the
chapel on Wakefield bridge pulled down, [16] a model of it built in its
place, and the entire front of the historical building carried away to
decorate a private boathouse; and I, quite as knowing in architecture
as most people, am cheated into some very careful and quite useless
work, and even into many false conclusions, by the sculpture of the
sham front, decayed and broken enough in thirty years to look older
than sculpture of 500 years B.C. would, or does, in pure air.
Observe, in the second place, how petulant and eager people are, the
moment a single word touches themselves, while universal abuses may be
set before them enough to bring all the stones in heaven but what serve
for the thunder, down about their ears,—and they will go on talking
about Shakspeare and the musical glasses undisturbed, to the end of
their lives; but let a single word glance at their own windows, or
knock at their own doors, and—instantly—‘If Mr. Ruskin is what I think
him, he will retract,’ etc. etc. But, alas! Mr. Ruskin is not the least
what Mrs. Green thinks him,—does not in the smallest degree care for a
lady’s “Fie’s,” and, publishing the following letters and newspaper
extracts for the general reader’s satisfaction and E. L.’s
justification, very contentedly, for his part, ends the discussion,
though of course Fors shall be open to any further communication, if
not too long, which either Mrs. Green or her husband may desire to have
inserted.
In the following letter I have left all the passages containing due
apology, while I have removed some which contained matter of further
debate, if not offence, thereby much weakening the whole.
“Dear Mr. Ruskin,—I have been away from home, and have only recently
seen Mrs. Green’s letter in the Fors of last month.
“I am sorry to have vexed her; I did not think that you would print the
passages referring to her husband in the form in which they stood. [17]
“When you said that you would assume my permission to print passages
from the letter, I supposed that they would be those relating to the
general life of Wakefield. All that I have written is essentially true,
but I do not wish to hold any controversy on the matter, for if I
defended myself publicly I should have to wound still further the
feelings of one who is no doubt a devoted wife.
“It is for your satisfaction alone that I write these lines. I have
been inaccurate on two points, on which I wrote too hastily, from
hearsay, gleaned on brief visits to Wakefield. Mr. Green has not a
Scotch estate, only occasional shooting, and he is not concerned in the
forges that stand near the bridge, as I was wrongly informed.
“I did not say, though I may have led your readers to infer it, that
the so-called ‘American devil’ was his. I knew, or rather was told,
that it belonged to Whithams, who have the largest foundry. He (Mr.
Green) does not forge iron, it seems; he makes it into machines. He can
hardly be classed as an engineer; he is a machine-maker. If he is not
an ‘iron lord,’ on what is his wealth based?
“Robin the Pedlar is no myth. I often heard him mentioned, when a girl,
as being Mrs. Green’s father. I dare say that Mrs. Edward Green never
heard of him. She came into the family in its genteeler days; but there
are old people in Wakefield who remember all about him. I send by this
post a Wakefield paper containing some speeches highly illustrative of
the town of which Mr. Green is the hero and model.” (These I do not
think it necessary to publish.) “Party feeling still runs high at
Wakefield, and when the next election occurs, Mrs. Green expects to
find big yellow bills on the gate-pillars of Heath Common, ‘Professor
Ruskin on Ned Green,’ and she is naturally angry.
“Of course he is not the sole offender. This case occurred to me
because he is the most prominent type of the modern successful men who
are to inaugurate a new era in the town’s history. It is the blind
leader of the blind in the downward way that things are going.
Everybody wants to get rich like him; everybody who has greed and
competence pushes to the front. The town council promise them that they
will make of Wakefield a second Bradford. Meanwhile they squabble about
their duties, the streets are filthy, smallpox breeds there, and they
set up a hospital in a tent. It catches fire, and nurse and patients
are burnt together. I think that was eight or nine years since.
Possibly arrangements are better now.
“You say truly that quickly acquired fortunes must be ill acquired, but
you must live on my level to realize fully how the prospect and
possibility of such gains are disorganizing middle-class life. English
people do not lift their families along with them, as we reproach the
‘clannish’ Scotch with doing.
“Ignorant pride on the one hand, envy on the other, breed hate between
those who should be a mutual stay. As classes are estranged, so are
families.
“In conclusion, I must again say that I shall always feel regret at
having pained Mrs. Green, but what I have said is true in all
essentials.
“He is the hero of the men who are changing Wakefield so rapidly. I
liked it better thirty years since, when, if it was poor, it was clean
and honest.
“I am, dear Mr. Ruskin, yours truly,
“E. L.”
I print the following first portion (about the fourth part) of a column
and a half of the evidence on the Wakefield election petition, sent me
by my correspondent; though I do not suppose it to indicate anything
more than compliance on Mr. Green’s part with the ordinary customs of
English electioneering.
“The trial of the petition against the return of Mr. Green, the
Conservative member for Wakefield, was resumed this morning before Mr.
Justice Grove. Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Chandos Leigh again appeared
for the petitioners, and Mr. C. Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Forbes for the
respondent. There was again a crowded attendance.
John Thompson, a tailor, and a voter in the Northgate Ward, said that
about half-past six o’clock, on Sunday, the 1st February—the day before
the polling—‘Councillor Joe’ (Mr. J. Howden) called at his house and
solicited his vote for Mr. Green. Witness said he did not think that he
could give it, but if he did he must ‘have something.’ Mr. Howden said,
‘If it’s worth anything I’ll let you know.’ About half-past one o’clock
on the polling day witness again saw him. Mr. Howden said, ‘If you vote
for Green, I’ll send you 10s. for your day’s wage.’ Witness said, ‘No;’
and they parted.
Cross-examined: Witness did not say to Mr. Howden that he had already
been offered a couple of pounds. He was a strong Radical. Mr. Howden
was at witness’s house several times, but he only saw him once. He
(witness) voted about half-past two in the afternoon.
Elizabeth Thompson, wife of the last witness, said that on the Saturday
and Sunday before the polling day Mr. J. Howden called to solicit her
husband’s vote, and he said, ‘If he votes for Green, I’ll see that he
is paid.’ On the Monday, when Mr. Howden called, he said, ‘If your
husband votes for Green I’ll give him 5s. out of my own pocket, and see
that he is ‘tipped’ in the committee room.’ Later in the day, her
husband was at home when Howden called, and they left the house
together.
Henry Blades, a blacksmith’s striker, and a voter in the Westgate ward,
said that on the day of the election Mr. Ough gave him £2 in the
Finisher Off public-house, on condition that he voted for Mr. Green.
Witness voted in the course of the day.
Cross-examined: Witness, since he received his subpœna, had met Mr.
Gill, the respondent’s solicitor, and others, at the Bull Hotel, and
put his name to a paper, of the nature of which he was ignorant.
Mr. Russell: Was it not a statement, made by yourself, and taken down
in writing, to the effect that you had never received any bribe or
offer of a bribe?
Witness: I don’t know. They asked me to sign the paper, and I signed
it. I was not sober.
Re-examined by Mr. Hawkins: Witness was sent for to the Bull. He
received there, after making his statement, two glasses of beer, and
5s. in money—the latter from Mr. Ough.
Henry Lodge said that on the afternoon of the election he was in
Farrar’s beerhouse, in Westgate. Blade was there ‘fresh,’ and taking
three half-sovereigns from his pocket, he threw them on the table, and
said, ‘That’s the sort to have.’
James Meeghan, an Irish labourer, said that he was a voter for the
borough, and on the polling day was canvassed by Mr. Kay for the
Conservatives. He met Mr. Kay in the polling booth, and received from
him 10s. Before voting, witness said to Mr. Kay that he was a poor man
and could not afford to lose his day’s wage. Mr. Kay said, ‘I can’t
give you a bribe—that’s against the law; but as you have had to pay
your mates for doing your work, you shall have something.’ In the
polling station Mr. Kay held a half-sovereign in his hand, behind him,
and witness took it.
Cross-examined: Mr. Kay offered witness the 10s. out of his own pocket.
Mr. Russell (to the Judge): What this man says is quite true. Mr. Kay
does not deny that he gave him half a sovereign for his loss of time.
Patrick M’Hugh, an Irish labourer, and a voter in the Northgate Ward,
said that on the polling day he visited the Conservative Committee-room
at the Zetland School, and saw Mr. Tom Howden. Mr. Howden said, ‘Are
you going to vote?’ Witness replied, ‘I suppose so;’ and Mr. Howden
said, ‘Come this way and I’ll show you how.’ Witness was taken into a
back room, and there Mr. Howden said, ‘Well, how much?’ Witness said,
‘Three,’ and Mr. Howden took them out of his pocket (three sovereigns),
and said, ‘See there.’ Witness took the money and voted. He had, since
receiving his subpœna, been away from Wakefield.
Cross-examined: Witness had visited Harrogate—staying a week there to
take the waters—(laughter),—and afterwards Thirsk. He paid his own
expenses and travelled alone, having been recommended by a doctor to go
away for the benefit of his health.
Mr. Russell: Who was the doctor?
Witness: Mr. Unthank—(great laughter);—Mr. Unthank being a chemist, and
a prominent Liberal. He said that if I could go, and was strong enough,
a bit of an out would do me good. (Laughter.) The £3 that I received at
the election supported me while I was away.
James Wright, a police officer of the borough of Wakefield, said that
on the polling day he was acting as door-keeper at the Zetland Street
polling station, and observed Mr. Priestly hand some money to one who
presented himself as a voter. Witness followed the voter into the
booth, and pointed him out to his superior officer. The man voted, and
then left. Mr. Priestly was busily employed during the polling hours in
conducting voters from the Conservative committee-room to the polling
station.
Cross-examined: At half-past three Priestly was ‘fresh’ in drink, and
it was found necessary to keep him out of the polling station. He was
in Mr. Green’s employment. Witness could not say what amount of money
passed; but some one in the crowd, who also saw the transaction, said
to Priestly, ‘You are doing it too brown.’ (Laughter.)”
The letters next following are from an entirely honest engineer
workman, a Companion of St. George.
“Dear Master,—I read Mrs. Green’s letter in the November Fors two or
three days ago, and yesterday I adopted the hint in it to inquire
amongst the workmen. I asked one working beside me, who I knew came
from Yorkshire, if he ever worked in Wakefield, and, curiously enough,
he belongs there, and was apprenticed in a workshop close to Mr.
Green’s. He says he knows the place well, and that certainly when he
was there, ‘At six o’clock, or some approximate hour,’ the firm of
Green and Son, ‘issued its counter-order’ with a horrible noise; and
not only at six o’clock, but also after meals.
“He also tells me that the wages of a working engineer in the workshop
of Green and Son average 22s. a week, and I know that here, in London,
they average 38s. a week, and Wakefield is close to coal and iron,
while London is not. It may be, as I once heard it, urged that the
workmen in London are superior as workmen to those in the provinces;
but my experience, which has been considerable in London and the
provinces as a working engineer, enables me to assert that this is not
the case. Also it may be urged that low wages prevail in the provinces,
but in Glasgow I got 30s. a week two years ago, and this week meant
fifty-one hours, while in Wakefield a week’s work means fifty-four
hours.
“Since Mr. Green derives no pecuniary benefit from Wakefield, it is
evident from the above that the London and Glasgow engineers are very
ingenious persons indeed, if they contrive to get pecuniary benefit
from the cities in which they issue their ‘counter-order.’
“Moreover, my fellow-workman tells me that there is a system of
piece-work carried on in the workshop of Green and Son, which is
extended to the apprentices, so that the boys are set to think, not how
to learn to work properly, but how to learn to get hold of the greatest
number of shillings they can in a week. In the man the desire for more
money is tempered with forethought: he knows that if he earns more than
a certain amount the price of his job will be cut down; but the boy
does not consider this, and his price, to use the language of the
workshop, is cut down accordingly.
“Mrs. Green in her letter says Mr. Green never had a forge. This means
that he never had a place which exclusively turned out forgings. But
connected with Mrs. Green’s establishment, my fellow-workman tells me,
are forges, as indeed there are in every engineering work I have seen.
Besides, there is constantly carried on a process of moulding ‘pig
iron’ at Mr. Green’s place, which requires the most intense heat, and
to which the workmen are exposed, as they are at the forge Mrs. Green
speaks of. (In your lectures to the students at Oxford in 1870, you say
that work requiring the use of fire must be reduced to its minimum, and
speak of its effects in Greek. I know some of its evil effects on the
blacksmiths, but I wonder if it is desirable for me to know the meaning
of the Greek language you use on that occasion.) (Yes; but you need not
be in any hurry about it.)
“It would seem, then, that Mr. Green stays at Heath Hall, and
cultivates an ideal refinement in art, while he is instrumental in
causing two or three hundred men and boys in Wakefield, from whom he
derives no pecuniary benefit, to cultivate there the fine art of music
in the shriek and roar of machines all day, to cultivate a trader’s
eagerness for bargaining, instead of a wish to do good work, and to
cultivate an acquaintance with the sort of work which, over ten years
constant experience in it tells me, is the most effective in this
country for qualifying themselves and others for admission to the
Ophthalmic, Orthopedic, and other institutions mentioned by your
correspondent, E. L.
“Last week I had intelligence of the death of a young engineer friend
of mine. A boiler burst while he was standing by, and shot him a
distance of 60 yards, killing him instantly.
“Dear Master, if I have made a mistake in troubling you with these
notes on Mrs. Green’s letter, I am sorry, but I could not resist the
impulse to write to you after what I learned from my fellow-workman. I
believe the facts are reliable, and at any rate I can give the
workman’s name who furnished them, if it is wanted.”
“Dear Master,—Since I wrote to you last I chanced on another workman,
who has worked in Green’s shop. He tells me it is known among the
workmen as ‘The Port in a Storm.’
“My first informant also, unasked, wrote to Wakefield for further
information. He showed me the letter in reply, which says that Green’s
whistle (it is also called a ‘buzzard’) was not stopped till force was
applied.
“‘The Port in a Storm’ means that only when assailed by the fierce
storm of hunger do the workmen think of applying for work at Green’s
place; that is, when they can’t get work anywhere else in the
neighbourhood.”
These letters appear to me entirely to justify the impression under
which E. L. wrote; but of course I shall be most happy if Mr. Green
will furnish me with more accurate indication of the persons who have
made Wakefield the horrible spectacle that it is. For although many of
my discreet friends cry out upon me for allowing ‘personalities,’ it is
my firm conviction that only by justly personal direction of blame can
any abuse be vigorously dealt with. And, as I will answer for the
sincerity and impartiality of attack, so I trust to make it always
finally accurate in aim and in limitation.