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.
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 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; 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 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.