The following expression of the wounded feelings of the 'Daily News'
is perhaps worth preserving:--
"Mr. Ruskin's 'Fors Clavigera' has already become so notorious as a
curious magazine of the blunders of a man of genius who has travelled
out of his province, that it is perhaps hardly worth while to notice
any fresh blunder. No one who writes on financial subjects need be at
all surprised that Mr. Ruskin funnily misinterprets what he has said,
and we have ourselves just been the victim of a misinterpretation of
the sort. Mr. Ruskin quotes a single sentence from an article which
appeared in our impression of the 3rd of March, and places on it the
interpretation that 'whenever you have reason to think that anybody
has charged you threepence for a twopenny article, remember that,
according to the "Daily News," the real capital of the community is
increased.' We need hardly tell our readers that we wrote no nonsense
of that kind. Our object was to show that the most important effect of
the high price of coal was to alter the distribution of the proceeds
of production in the community, and not to diminish the amount of it;
that it was quite possible for real production, which is always the
most important matter in a question of material wealth, to increase,
even with coal at a high price; and that there was such an increase at
the time we were writing, although coal was dear. These are certainly
very different propositions from the curious deduction which Mr. Ruskin
makes from a single short sentence in a long article, the purport of
which was clear enough. There is certainly no cause for astonishment
at the blunders which Mr. Ruskin makes in political economy and
finance, if his method is to rush at conclusions without patiently
studying the drift of what he reads. Oddly enough, it may be added,
there is one way in which dear coal may increase the capital of a
country like England, though Mr. Ruskin seems to think the thing
impossible. We are exporters of coal, and of course the higher the
price the more the foreigner has to pay for it. So far, therefore,
the increased price is advantageous, although on balance, every one
knows, it is better to have cheap coal than dear."
Let me at once assure the editor of the 'Daily News' that I meant him
no disrespect in choosing a 'long' article for animadversion. I had
imagined that the length of his articles was owing rather to his sense
of the importance of their subject than to the impulsiveness and rash
splendour of his writing. I feel, indeed, how much the consolation
it conveys is enhanced by this fervid eloquence; and even when I had
my pocket picked the other day on Tower Hill, it might have soothed
my ruffled temper to reflect that, in the beautiful language of
the 'Daily News,' the most important effect of that operation was
"to alter the distribution of the proceeds of production in the
community, and not to diminish the amount of it." But the Editor ought
surely to be grateful to me for pointing out that, in his present
state of mind, he may not only make one mistake in a long letter,
but two in a short one. Their object, declares the 'Daily News,'
(if I would but have taken the pains to appreciate their efforts,)
"was to show that it was quite possible for real production to
increase, even with coal at a high price." It is quite possible for
the production of newspaper articles to increase, and of many other
more useful things. The speculative public probably knew, without
the help of the 'Daily News,' that they might still catch a herring,
even if they could not broil it. But the rise of price in coal itself
was simply caused by the diminution of its production, or by roguery.
Again, the intelligent journal observes that "dear coal may increase
the capital of a country like England, because we are exporters of
coal, and the higher the price, the more the foreigner has to pay
for it." We are exporters of many other articles besides coal, and
foreigners are beginning to be so foolish, finding the prices rise,
as, instead of "having more to pay for them," never to buy them. The
'Daily News,' however, is under the impression that over, instead of
under, selling, is the proper method of competition in foreign markets,
which is not a received view in economical circles.
I observe that the 'Daily News,' referring with surprise to the
conclusions which unexpectedly, though incontrovertibly, resulted
from their enthusiastic statement, declare they need hardly tell
their readers they "wrote no nonsense of that kind." But I cannot but
feel, after their present better-considered effusion, that it would
be perhaps well on their part to warn their readers how many other
kinds of nonsense they will in future be justified in expecting.