clearer than the imperative necessity of Universal Education, as a
matter simply of Public Economy. In these densely peopled islands, where
service is cheap, and where many persons qualified to teach are
maintaining a precarious struggle for subsistence, a system of General
Education need not cost half so much as in the United States, while
wealth is so concentrated that taxes bear less hardly here, in
proportion to their amount, than with us. Every dollar judiciously spent
on the education of poor children, would be more than saved in the
diminution of the annual cost of pauperism and crime, while the
intellectual and industrial capacity of the people would be vastly
increased by it. I do not see how even Clerical bigotry, formidable as
it deplorably is, can long resist this consideration among a people so
thrifty and saving, as are in the main the wielders of political power
in this country.
_Political Reforms_ move slowly here. Mr. Hume's motion for Household
Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, Triennial Parliaments, &c. was denied a
consideration, night before last, by the concerted absence from the
House of nearly all the members--only twenty-one appearing when forty
(out of over six hundred) are required to constitute a quorum. So the
subject lost its place as a set motion, and probably will not come up
again this Session. The Ministry opposed its consideration now,
promising themselves to bring forward a measure for the Extension of
the Franchise _next Session_, when it is very unlikely that they will be
in a position to bring forward anything. It seems to me that the current
sets strongly against their continuance in office, and that, between the
hearty Reformers on one side and the out-spoken Conservatives on the
other, they must soon surrender their semblance of power. Still, they
are skillful in playing off one extreme against another, and may thus
endure or be endured a year longer; but the probability is against this.
To my mind, it seems clear that their retirement is essential to the
prosecution of Liberal Reforms. So long as they remain in power, they
will do, in the way of the People's Enfranchisement, as near nought as
possible.
(----"Nothing could live
Twixt that and silence.")
Their successors, the avowed Conservatives, will of course do nothing;
but they cannot hold power long in the Britain of to-day; and whoever
shall succeed them must come in on a popular tide and on the strength of
pledges to specific and comprehensive Reforms which cannot well be
evaded. Slow work, say you? Well, there is no quicker practicable. When
the Tories shall have been in once more and gone out again, there will
be another great forward movement like the Reform Bill, and I think not
till then, unless the Continent shall meantime be convulsed by the
throes of a general Revolution.
I should like to see a chance for the defeat of that most absurd of all
Political stupidities, the _Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption Bill_, but
I do not. Persecution for Faith's sake is most abhorrent, yet sincerity
and zeal may render it respectable; but this bill has not one redeeming
feature. While it insults the Catholics, it is perfectly certain to
increase their numbers and power; and it will do this without inflicting
on them the least substantial injury. Cardinal Wiseman will be the
local head of the Catholic Church in England, whether he is legally
forbidden to be styled "Archbishop of Westminster" or not, and so of the
Irish Catholic prelates. The obstacles which the ministerial bill
attempts to throw in the way of bequests to the Catholic Bishops as
such, will be easily evaded; these Bishops will exercise every function
of the Episcopate whether this Bill shall pass or fail: and their moral
power will be greatly increased by its passage. But the Ministry, which
has found the general support of the Catholics, and especially of the
Irish Catholic Members, very opportune at certain critical junctures,
will henceforth miss that support--in fact, it has already been
transformed into a most virulent and deadly hostility. Rural England was
hostile to the ministry before, on account of the depressing effect of
Free Trade on the agricultural interest; and now Ireland is turned
against them by their own act--an act which belies the professions of
Toleration in matters of Faith which have given them a great hold of the
sympathies of the best men in the country throughout the last half
century. I do not see how they can ride out the storm which they by this
bill have aroused.
The cause of _Temperance_--of Total Abstinence from all that can
intoxicate--is here about twenty years behind its present position in
the United States. I think there are not more absolute drunkards here
than in our American cities, but the habit of drinking for drink's sake
is all but universal. The Aristocracy drink almost to a man; so do the
Middle Class; so do the Clergy; so alas! do the Women! There is less of
Ardent Spirits imbibed than with us; but Wines are much cheaper and in
very general use among the well-off; while the consumption of Ale, Beer,
Porter, &c. (mainly by the Poor) is enormous. Only think of L5,000,000
or _Twenty-Five Millions of Dollars_, paid into the Treasury in a single
year by the People of these Islands as Malt-Tax alone, while the other
ingredients used in the manufacture of Malt Liquors probably swell the
aggregate to Thirty Millions of Dollars. If we suppose this to be a
little more than one-third of the ultimate cost of these Liquors to the
consumers, that cost cannot be less than _One Hundred Millions of
Dollars per annum!_--a sum amply sufficient, if rightly expended, to
banish Pauperism and Destitution for ever from the British Isles. And
yet the poor trudge wearily on, loaded to the earth with exactions and
burdens of every kind, yet stupifying their brains, emptying their
pockets and ruining their constitutions with these poisonous,
brutalizing liquors! I see no hope for them short of a System of Popular
Education which shall raise them mentally above their present low
condition, followed by a few years of systematic, energetic, omnipresent
Temperance Agitation. A slow work this, but is there any quicker that
will be effective? The Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge would greatly
contribute to the Education of the Poor, but that Reform has yet to be
struggled for.
Of _Social Reform_ in England, the most satisfactory agency at present
is the Society for improving the Dwellings of the Poor. This Society has
the patronage of the Queen, is presided over (I believe) by her husband,
and is liberally patronized by the better portion of the Aristocracy and
the higher order of the Clergy. These, aided by wealthy or philanthropic
citizens, have contributed generously, and have done a good work, even
though they should stop where they are. The work would not, could not
stop with them. They have already proved that good, substantial,
cleanly, wholesome, tight-roofed, well ventilated dwellings for the Poor
are absolutely cheaper than any other, so that Shylock himself might
invest his fortune in the construction of such with the moral certainty
of receiving a large income therefrom, while at the same time rescuing
the needy from wretchedness, disease, brutalization and vice. Shall not
New-York, and all her sister cities, profit by the lesson?
Of the correlative doings of the organized Promoters of Working Men's
Associations, Cooeperative Stores, &c., I would not be justified in
speaking so confidently, at least until I shall have observed more
closely. My present impression is that they are both far less mature in
their operations, and that, as they demand of the Laboring Class more
confidence in themselves and each other, than, unhappily, prevails as
yet, they are destined to years of struggle and chequered fortunes
before they will have achieved even the measure of success which the
Model Lodging and the Bathing and Washing Houses have already achieved.
Still, I have not yet visited the strongest and most hopeful of the
Working Men's Associations.
I spent last evening with the friends of ROBERT OWEN, who celebrated his
80th birthday by a dinner at the Cranbourne Hotel. Among those present
were Thornton Hunt, son of Leigh Hunt, and one of the Editors of "The
Leader;" Gen. Houg, an exile from Germany from Freedom's sake; Mr.
Fleming, Editor of the Chartist "Northern Star;" Mons. D'Arusmont and his
daughter, who is the daughter also of Frances Wright. Mr. Owen was of
course present, and spoke quite at length in reiteration and enforcement
of the leading ideas wherewith he has so long endeavored to impress the
world respecting the absolute omnipotence of circumstances in shaping the
Human Character, the impossibility of believing or disbelieving save as
one must, &c. &c. Mr. Owen has scarcely looked younger or heartier at any
time these ten years; he did not seem a shade older than when I last
before met him, at least three years ago. And not many young men are more
buoyant in spirit, more sanguine as to the immediate future, more genial
in temper, more unconquerable in resolution, than he is. I cannot see many
things as he does; it seems to me that he is stone blind on the side of
Faith in the Invisible, and exaggerates the truths he perceives until they
almost become falsehoods; but I love his sunny, benevolent nature, I admire
his unwearied exertions for what he deems the good of Humanity; and,
believing with the great Apostle to the Gentiles, that "Now abide Faith,
Hope, Charity: these three; but the greatest of these is Charity," I
consider him practically a better Christian than half those who,
professing to be such, believe more and do less. I trust his life may be
long spared, and his sun beam cloudless and rosy to the last.
VII.
LONDON--NEW-YORK.
LONDON, Monday, May 15, 1851.
I have now been fifteen days in this magnificent Babel, but so much
engrossed with the Exhibition that I have seen far less of the town than
I otherwise should. Of the City proper (in the center) I know a little;
and I have made my way thence out into the open country on the North and
on the West respectively, but toward the South lies a wilderness of
buildings which I have not yet explored; while Eastward the metropolitan
districts stretch further than I have ever been. The south side of Hyde
Park and the main line of communication thence with the City proper is
the only part of London with which I can claim any real acquaintance.
Yet, on the strength of what little I _do_ know, I propose to say
something of London as it strikes a stranger; and in so doing I shall
generally refer to New-York as a standard of comparison, so as to render
my remarks more lucid to a great portion of their readers.
The _Buildings_ here are generally superior to those of our City--more
substantial, of better materials, and more tasteful. There are, I think,
as miserable rookeries here as anywhere; but they are exceptions; while
most of the houses are built solidly, faithfully, and with a thickness
of walls which would be considered sheer waste in our City. Among the
materials most extensively used is a fine white marble[A] of a
peculiarly soft, creamy appearance, which looks admirably until
blackened by smoke and time. Regent-street and several of the
aristocratic quarters west of it are in good part built of this marble;
but one of the finest, freshest specimens of it is St. George's
Hospital, Piccadilly, which to my eye is among the most tasteful
edifices in London. If (as I apprehend) St. Paul's Church, Somerset
House, and the similarly smoke-stained dwellings around Finsbury Oval
were built of this same marble, then the murky skies of London have much
to answer for.
Throughout the Western and Northern sections of the Metropolis, the
dwellings are far less crowded than is usual in the corresponding or
up-town portion of New-York, are more diverse in plan, color and finish,
and better provided with court-yards, shrubbery, &c. In the matter of
Building generally, I think our City would profit by a study of London,
especially if our lot-owners, builders, &c., would be satisfied with
London rates of interest on their respective investments. I think four
per cent. is considered a tolerable and five a satisfactory interest on
money securely invested in houses in London.
By the way: the apostles of Sanitary Reform here are anticipating very
great benefits from the use of the Hollow Brick just coming into
fashion. I am assured by a leading member of the Sanitary Commission
that the hollow brick cost much less than the solid ones, and are a
perfect protection against the dampness so generally experienced in
brick houses, and often so prejudicial to health. That there is a great
saving in the cost of their transportation is easily seen; and, as they
are usually made much larger than the solid brick, they can be laid up
much faster. I think Dr. Southwood Smith assured me that the saving in
the first cost of the brickwork of a house is _one-third_; if that is a
mistake, the error is one of misapprehension on my part. The hollow
brick is a far less perfect conductor of heat and cold than the solid
one; consequently, a house built of the former is much cooler in Summer
and warmer in Winter. It is confidently and reasonably hoped here that
very signal improvements, in the dwellings especially of the Poor, are
to be secured by means of this invention. Prince Albert has caused two
Model Cottages of this material to be erected at his cost in Hyde Park
near the Great Exhibition in order to attract general attention to the
subject.
The _Streets_ of London are generally better paved, cleaner and better
lighted than those of New-York. Instead of our round or cobble stone,
the material mainly used for paving here is a hard flint rock, split and
dressed into uniform pieces about the size of two bricks united by their
edges, so as to form a surface of some eight inches square with a
thickness of two inches. This of course wears much more evenly and lasts
longer than cobble-stone pavements. I do not know that we could easily
procure an equally serviceable material, even if we were willing to pay
for it. One reason of the greater cleanness of the streets here is the
more universal prevalence of sewerage; another is the positive value of
street-offal here for fertilizing purposes. And as Gas is supplied here
to citizens at 4s. 6d. ($1.10) per thousand feet, while the good people
of New-York must bend to the necessity of paying $3.50, or more than
thrice as much for the like quantity, certainly of no better quality, it
is but reasonable to infer that the Londoners can afford to light their
streets better than the New-Yorkers.
But there are other aspects in which _our_ streets have a decided
superiority. There are half a dozen streets and places here having the
same name, and only distinguished by appending the name of a neighboring
street, as "St. James-place, St. James-st.," to distinguish it from
several other St. James-places, and so on. This subjects strangers to
great loss of time and vexation of spirit. I have not yet delivered half
the letters of introduction which were given me at home to friends of
the writers in this city, and can't guess when I shall do it. Then the
numbering of the streets is absurdly vicious--generally 1, 2, 3, 4, &c.,
up one side and down the other side, so that 320 will be opposite 140,
and 412 opposite 1, and so throughout. Of course, if any street so
numbered is extended beyond its original limit, the result is
inextricable confusion. But the Londoners seem not to have caught the
idea of numbering by lots at all, but to have numbered only the houses
that actually existed when the numbering was undertaken; so that, if a
street happened to be numbered when only half built up, every house
erected afterward serves to render confusion worse confounded. On this
account I spent an hour and a half a few evenings since in fruitless
endeavors to find William and Mary Howitt, though I knew they lived at
No. 28 Upper Avenue Road, which is less than half a mile long. I found
Nos. 27, 29, 30, and 31, and finally found 28 also, but in another part
of the street, with a No. 5 near it on one side and No. 16 ditto on the
other--and this in a street quite recently opened. I think New-York has
nothing equal to this in perplexing absurdity.
The _Police_ here is more omnipresent and seems more efficient than
ours. I think the use of a common and conspicuous uniform has a good
effect. No one can here pretend that he defied or resisted a policeman
in ignorance of his official character. The London police appears to be
quite numerous, is admirably organized, and seems to be perfectly docile
to its superiors. Always to obey and never to ask the reason of a
command, is the rule here; it certainly has its advantages, but is not
well suited to the genius of our people.
The _Hotels_ of London are decidedly inferior to those of New-York. I do
not mean by this that every comfort and reasonable luxury may not be
obtained in the London inns for money enough, but simply that the same
style of living costs more in this city than in ours. I think $5 per day
would be a fair estimate for the cost of living (servants' fees
included) as well in a London hotel as you may live in a first-class
New-York hotel for half that sum. One main cause of this disparity is
the smallness of the inns here. A majority of them cannot accommodate
more than twenty to forty guests comfortably; I think there are not four
in the entire Metropolis that could find room for one hundred each. Of
course, the expense of management, supervision, attendance, &c., in
small establishments is proportionably much greater than in large ones,
and the English habit of eating fitfully _solus_ instead of at a common
hour and table increases the inevitable cost. Considering the National
habits, it might be hazardous to erect and open such a hotel as the
Astor, Irving or New-York in this city; but if it were once well done,
and the experiment fairly maintained for three years, it could not fail
to work a revolution. _Wines_ (I understand) cost not more than half as
much here, in the average, as they do in New-York.
In _Cabs_ and other Carriages for Hire, London is ahead of New-York. The
number here is immense; they are of many varieties, some of them better
calculated for fine weather than any of ours; while the legal rates of
fare are more moderate and not so outrageously exceeded. While the
average New-York demand is fully double the legal fare, the London
cabman seldom asks more than fifty per cent. above what the law allows
him; and this (by Americans, at least) is considered quite reasonable
and cheerfully paid. If our New-York Jehus could only be made to realize
that they keep their carriages empty by their exorbitant charges, and
really double-lock their pockets against the quarters that citizens
would gladly pour into them, I think a reform might be hoped for.
The _Omnibuses_ of London are very numerous and well governed, but I
prefer those of New-York. The charges are higher here, though still
reasonable; but the genius of this people is not so well adapted to the
Omnibus system as ours is. For example: an Omnibus (the last for the
night) was coming down from the North toward Charing Cross the other
evening, when a lady asked to be taken up. The stage was full; the law
forbids the taking of more than twelve passengers inside; a remonstrance
was instantly raised by one or more of the passengers against taking
her; and she was left to plod her weary way as she could. I think that
could not have happened in New-York. In another instance, a stage-full
of passengers started eastward from Hyde Park, one of the women having a
basket of unwashed clothes on her knee. It was certainly inconvenient,
and not absolutely inoffensive; but the hints, the complaints, the
slurs, the sneers, with which the poor woman was annoyed and tortured
throughout--from persons certainly well-dressed and whom I should
otherwise have considered well-bred--were a complete surprise to me. In
vain did the poor woman explain that she was not permitted to deposit
her basket on the roof of the stage, as it was raining; the growls and
witticisms at her expense continued, and women were foremost in this
rudeness. I doubt that a woman was ever exposed to the like in New-York,
unless she was suspected of having Ethiopian blood in her veins.
The _Parks_, _Squares_ and _Public Gardens_ of London beat us clean out
of sight. The Battery is very good, but it is not Hyde Park; Hoboken
_was_ delightful; Kensington Gardens _are_ and ever will remain so. Our
City ought to have made provision, twenty years ago, for a series of
Parks and Gardens extending quite across the island somewhere between
Thirtieth and Fiftieth streets. It is now too late for that; but all
that can be should be done immediately to secure breathing-space and
grounds for healthful recreation to the Millions who will ultimately
inhabit New-York. True, the Bay, the North and East Rivers, will always
serve as lungs to our City, but these of themselves will not suffice.
Where is or where is to be the Public Garden of New York? where the
attractive walks, and pleasure-grounds of the crowded denizens of the
Eastern Wards? These must be provided, and the work cannot be commenced
too soon.
FOOTNOTES:
[A] It seems that this plain marble is but an _imitation_--a stone or
brick wall covered with a composition, which gives it a smooth and
creamy appearance.
VIII.
THE EXHIBITION.
LONDON, Wednesday, May 21, 1851.
"All the world"--that is to say, some scores of thousands who would
otherwise be in London--are off to-day to the Epsom Races, this being
the "Derby Day," a great holiday here. Our Juries at the Fair generally
respect it, and I suppose I ought to have gone, since the opportunity
afforded for seeing out-door "life" in England may not occur to me
again. As, however, I have very much to do at home, and do not care one
button which of twenty or thirty colts can run fastest, I stay away; and
the murky, leaden English skies conspire to justify my choice. I
understand the regulations at these races are superior and ensure
perfect order; but Gambling, Intoxication and Licentiousness--to say
nothing of Swindling and Robbery--always did regard a horse-race with
signal favor and delight, and probably always will. Other things being
equal, I prefer that their delight and mine should not exactly coincide.
I am away from the Exhibition to-day for the second time since it
opened; yet I understand that, in spite of the immense number gone to
Epsom (perhaps in consequence of the general presumption that few would
be left to attend), the throng is as great as ever. Yesterday there were
so many in the edifice that the Juries which kept together often found
themselves impeded by the eddying tide of Humanity; and yet there have
been no admissions paid for with so little as one dollar each. Next
Monday the charge comes down to _one_ shilling (24 cents), and it is
already evident that extraordinary measures must be taken to preserve
the Exhibition from choking up. I presume it will be decreed that no
more than Forty, Fifty or at most Sixty Thousand single admissions shall
be sold in one day, and that each apartment, lane or avenue in the
building shall be entered from one prescribed end only and vacated from
the other. The necessity for some such regulation is obviously
imperative.