_February 19, 1867._
15. In the 'Pall Mall Gazette' of yesterday, second column of second
page, you will find, close to each other, two sentences which bear
closely on matters in hand. The first of these is the statement, that
in the debate on the grant for the Blacas collection, "Mr. Bernal
Osborne got an assenting cheer, when he said that 'whenever science
and art were mentioned it was a sign to look after the national
pockets.'" I want you to notice this fact, _i. e._, (the debate in
question being on a _total_ grant of 164,000_l._, of which 48,000_l._
only were truly for art's sake, and the rest for shop's sake,) in
illustration of a passage in my 'Sesame and Lilies' (pp. 69, 70 of the
small edition, and pp. 46, 47 of Vol. I. of the Revised Series of the
Entire Works),[A] to which I shall have again to refer you, with some
further comments, in the sequel of these letters. The second passage
is to the effect that "The Trades' Union Bill was read a second time,
after a claim from Mr. Hadfield, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Samuelson, to
admit working men into the commission; to which Mr. Watkin answered
'that the working men's friend was too conspicuous in the body;' and
Mr. Roebuck, 'that when a butcher was tried for murder it was not
necessary to have butchers on the jury.'"
[A] Appendix I.
16. Note this second passage with respect to what I said in my last
letter, as to the impossibility of the laws of work being investigated
in the House of Commons. What admixture of elements, think you, would
avail to obtain so much as decent hearing (how should we then speak of
impartial judgment?) of the cause of working men, in an assembly which
permits to one of its principal members this insolent discourtesy of
language, in dealing with a preliminary question of the highest
importance; and permits it as so far expressive of the whole color and
tone of its own thoughts, that the sentence is quoted by one of the
most temperate and accurate of our daily journals, as representing the
total answer of the opposite side in the debate? No! be assured you
can do nothing yet at Westminster. You must have your own parliament,
and if you cannot detect enough honesty among you to constitute a
justly minded one, for the present matters must take their course, and
that will be, yet awhile, to the worse.
17. I meant to have continued this subject, but I see two other
statements in the 'Pall Mall Gazette' of to-day, with which, and a
single remark upon them, I think it will be well to close my present
letter.
(1) "The total sum asked for in the army estimates, published this
morning, is 14,752,200_l._, being an increase of 412,000_l._ over the
previous year."
(2) "Yesterday the annual account of the navy receipts and expenditure
for the year ending 31st March, 1866, was issued from the Admiralty.
The expenditure was 10,268,115_l._ 7_s._"
Omitting the seven shillings, and even the odd hundred-thousands of
pounds, the net annual expenditure for army and navy appears to be
twenty-four millions.
The "grant in science and art," two-thirds of which was not in reality
for either, but for amusement and shop interests in the Paris
Exhibition--the grant which the House of Commons feels to be
indicative of general danger to the national pockets--is, as above
stated, 164,000_l._ Now, I believe the three additional ciphers which
turn thousands into millions produce on the intelligent English mind
usually the effect of--three ciphers. But calculate the proportion of
these two sums, and then imagine to yourself the beautiful state of
rationality of any private gentleman, who, having regretfully spent
164_l._ on pictures for his walls, paid willingly 24,000_l._ annually
to the policeman who looked after his shutters! You practical
English!--will you ever unbar the shutters of your brains, and hang
a picture or two in those state-chambers?