FOOTNOTES.

The Mayor, Thomas Lloyd Esq., said that nothingcould possibly be more gratifying to him during his term of office than to have presided over a Meeting at which the Public Libraries’ Act had been adopted.[34]

Gentlemen, I am desirous you should notice this amended Act, under which Parishes can take a vote, provides not only forLibrariesandMuseums, but also forNews Rooms, and that the general management is vested in Ratepayers, “not less than Three nor more than Nine,” appointed by the Vestry, and that one third of such Commissioners go out of office yearly—I hope the Vestry will not select the nine from their own body, but will appoint at least four Ratepayers who areNOTVestrymen.

A local paper, prone to balderdash and babblement, noted for its rigmarole, loose, hyperbolical language, indulges in a jeremiad about the want of a Museum. It seems, according to this mendacious journal, that the great hardship of walking from Lisson Grove, or the district of St. Mary to the British Museum in Great Russell Street, or to Kensington is “desolating hearts that might be bright,” and that setting up a Museum in the wastes of Marylebone by “Government friendship,” or expense, is

“unhappily a universal want; a want that private enterprise cannot meet,”

and then with some insolent rant about Prince Albert, and

“the evil tendencies of our Parish Senators,”

this low class Marylebone Mercury advises a run on the British Museum Natural History collection, and so

“preventing our neighbours fromABSORBINGall that is to be had.”

Well for the consolation of this miserable, mean print, and the languishing and desolate in heart, pining for a “splendid museum at somebody else’s expense,” I would prescribethe procuring the Libraries’ Act for “promoting the establishment of Free Public Libraries andMuseumsin Parishes.” If a Museum is a “want” in this Parish, which, with the proximity of the National Collection and Kensington Museum, I deny; you have only to adopt the Act. But I earnestly recommend the not attempting too much at once.LendingLibraries andNewsRooms are the great want, andNOTMuseums. Why willMr. Roupell, M.P., in advocating a South London Museum persist inIGNORINGMr. Ewart’sMuseum’sAct? Why this anxiety to rob the National Museum? Why this whining for government aid? Adopt the Libraries Act, if you really require a Museum for South London; but you wantNews Roomsopen to all comers,notMuseums.

And here I am constrained to remark that Penny Journals are not always vehicles of instruction in any sense of the term. I regret there are not a few Editors in this great Metropolis who have a special aptitude for lowering and degrading Journalism. Take up theDaily Telegraph—to talk of the “MORALtone” of this paper is nothing less than ineffable bosh. Its exaggerated, ethical articles, are nauseous in the extreme. Let me only refer to the case of the “ingenuous”Eugenie Plummer, recently convicted of perjury. With Judaic malevolence theTelegraphfrom the first displayed great anxiety to criminate Mr. Hatch, who is now acquitted by an impartial Jury. The desire to pander to an impure taste, was only equalled by the base attempt to crush an innocent clergyman,coûte qui coûte; and even after the conviction of the precocious, marble hearted girl, (who deserved a sound flogging as the only punishment she could feel,) this cheap and nasty Print is at its dirty work again in assuming guilt, and asserting that the unfortunate gentleman “did not behave like an innocent man.”[35]SerjeantShee’sis very dirty money, but thisTelegraph’sis worse. It lowers a noble vocation, and sinks it toPressgangism.

The critic of theDaily Telegraphhas a difficult task,for its nauseous, maudlin effusions, when wishing to be mighty fine, have a bewildering effect. Its

“No meaning puzzles more than wit.”

The Editor is evidently a nice man, with very nasty ideas. Not the Holywell Street Press, not the most prurient pages of Romance, can equal the skimble skamble stuff of its virtuous indignation articles. The death of Lady Noel Byron, the widow of the great Poet, is a case in point:—

“The creature’s at his dirty work again,”

The discretion of an Editor is never better employed than in steering clear of the idle gossip and calumnies of the day, and if there ever was a name that should be tenderly uttered, it is that of George Gordon Noel Byron. It is a gross violation of Editorial duty to bespatter, to assail with infamy, the memory of a Poet, only thirty-seven years of age, who accomplished so much, and whose early death eclipsed the gaiety of nations!

“Ruins of years—though few, yet full of fate:”

Why theChildewill live as long as the language endures:

“Not in the air shall these my words disperse,”

Now who are you, Mr. Editor of theTelegraph, and of what faith, to impiously dare to scan the thoughts, and discern the intents of the human heart? That power to scan belongs toGodonly.

You are told, on Divine authority, which no Christian disputes, to “JUDGE NOT,” and yet you do not scruple to assert that Byron “was driven from his country, and deserved the doom.” Would the editor of theTelegraph, the writer of this censorship, escape, if all had their deserts?

Why this wretched, Papistical jumble about the “adoration of Lady Byron by the serious world,” and “reconciliation in the grave,” and “her prayers having been heard for her erring husband.” But I hasten to dismiss this Pharisee of theTelegraph, who daily reminds us that

“Dulness is ever apt to magnify.”

Having so often discussed the advantages of NewspaperReading, it becomes a duty again to refer to such glaring misleaders as the veeringTimes, which affects toguide, not to follow opinion. The flood and ebb of public opinion is carefully marked by this unprincipled Paper, and to every passing breeze it trims its sails. The most signal instance of the transparent dissimulation of theTimes, is its truly hypocritical expression of its “great regret,” because the Lords threw out the Repeal Bill! St. James’ Square, and Printing House Square, have coalesced, and the “Heads of Houses,” Derby, Walter, and Co., must now be prepared to take the consequences of their revolutionary tactics. No doubt my esteemed friend, the Author of Festus, had the ShuttlecockTimesin view when he favoured me with the Portraiture of Newspapers. It is far too sweeping an indictment, for the tone of the Press generally is sound and healthy, always excepting the misleadingTimes, theDaily Telegraph, andMorning Advertiser.

I will quote Mr. Bailey’s clever sketch of the “great mercantile concern.”

“I think if working men are to be led to read at all, the Newspaper with its ill feeling, bad reasoning, worse taste, fallacious assumptions and distortions of the truth, is about the most objectionable school in which they could be educated.”

Speaking generally, the newspaper literature of 1860 exhibits as much information, and more talent than can be found in modern empty books with gilt edges, vellum, and morocco. The Editors of the London Journals, with a few base exceptions, nobly use their opportunities of directing public opinion. No such vile journalism exists in this country as can any day be found in theNew York Herald, a one, or two cent daily paper, owned and edited by theblack mail levyingvagabond, and fugitive fromScotland,James Gordon Bennett; a paper which does its best to fan the flame of discord, by abusing “the Britishers.” The patrioticTimesquotes the lyingHeraldas if it were a reliant organ of the Americans, ignoring the fact that this notorious Print is estimated in New York as the Satirist was in London. It is curious that two persons, of unenviable fame, the ScotchmanBennett, and a Somersetshireman,Richard Adams Locke, both of whom I well knew in New York, in 1833, and who both left their country for their country’s good, are always described as “Americans.” The great Moon hoax,[38a]“Astronomical Discoveries” by Sir F. Herschell, at the Cape of Good Hope, published in the New York Sun, was written byLocke, the degenerate Englishman, who theIllustrated Timesdescribes as an “American.” TheNew York Era, edited and owned byR. A. Locke, andJ. G. Bennett’s Herald, appeared in 1834.Arcades ambo! Arcadians both, suspicious characters both, these rival “American” Editors abused each other in no measured terms. I have always held it is the worst crime the intellect can commit, to edit such vituperative Journals, and it is indeed well for the community such worthless prints are few in number. Obscure indeed, is the mental vision of those Editors who cannot discern the iniquity ofmisleading, instead ofleading arightpublic opinion, who with pens of ready writers, strive to make the worse the better reason; and who viewing all subjects through the spectacles of Party, tell us that “white isnotwhite,norblack sovery black.” Talk of theTimesas theLEADINGJournal ofEurope! If daily to utter unblushing falsehoods, and odious calumnies, knowing them to be such, constitutesleadershipin Journalism, in this sense [à laHeenan, the Irish American Bouncer] theTimesis “The Championof the World.”[38b]

Ever strongest on the strongest side, if ever there was a disengenuous untrustworthy arbiter of Opinion, it is this false Oracle of Printing House Square! Why its leader, 16th May, on “the most extraordinary case ever producedin a Court of Justice,” clearly denotes that I amNOTan unjust Judge, in sentencing theTimesto be gibbeted as a wicked, misleading guide. Observe its sudden changes of doctrine, and how rapidly it veers from N.W. to S.E. Now that the balance of opinion has taken a decided turn, and there is a distinct assent to the perjury of Eugenie, and the innocence of her victim, theTimestries to mislead and insult the judgment of the public, by representing the “ingenuous”Eugenie Plummeras “the daughter ofRESPECTABLEand wealthy parents!” [Would that such “respectability” were consigned to gaol, until this “wealthy” Mrs. Plummer paid a fine of £1000 to Mr. Hatch, as some atonement for her neglect, and guilty connivance.] Now the case is closed, and the verdict is recorded, theTimesis “first at last” in making the discovery that

“nemo repente fuit turpissimus,”

that no one, especially a clergyman, ever became lost to all sense of decency at once. The “leading” Journal canNOWsee clearly enough the obvious improbability, and unreasonableness of the disgusting accusation of two girls of established precocity, against a clergyman of good extraction, education, and behaviour, who for eight years had filled a responsible situation without reproach, and against whose conduct, until this time, not a charge had ever been alleged. Could not this “organised hypocrisy” theTimes(as Disraeli would call it) have said all this at the first trial, and not cried

“I warn’d you when the event was o’er.”

Ah! but this great Ocean of Print, theTimes, is a “mercantile concern,” and does not keep a conscience, and sneers and laughs at the least earnestness in the Editorial department. PerhapsMr. John Walter, the Times Manager, and Chief Proprietor, by the competition of an unfettered Press, may find out that in Journalism, as in other pursuits, “Honesty is the best policy.” That maxim is now utterly discredited. Yet even at the eleventh hour there is for such a first class moral delinquent as theTimes, alocus penetentiæ, but as a sine quânon, the Editor, or literary hireling, must abjure servility, and disdain to become

“A constant critic at the great man’s board,To fetch and carry nonsense for my Lord.”

And here let me for a moment glance at SerjeantShee’sspeech. Observe this Old Bailey advocate is well aware of that most unfair rule of law, which prohibits every person, and the wife of every person, who stands as a defendant at a criminal bar, from giving evidence. He well knew the discreditable defects in our criminal jurisprudence, and yet felt no compunction in doing his best to blacken the character of a clergyman who is not of Rome. Let me tell this Q.C., who delights in desperate eases, that as a member of that church which condemns priests to celibacy, and consecrates the revelations of the confessional, [that confessional, which thirty-three inexperienced Italian girls have lately exemplified the use of,] he should have paused ere flinging dirt at priests of a purer faith. The sentence of the Criminal Court of Turin on Don Gurlino, an unparalleled villain, Curate of the Church of St. Carlo, was ringing in his ears, when Serjeant Shee deemed it an honourable discharge of his duty to try and crush an innocent man, and load the Ministry of the English Church with undeserved censure.

Let me tell Serjeant Shee he made a sufficiently bad appearance in the case of Palmer, the Poisoner, and if his Church so instructs him, he is badly advised. Let me remind him that his countryman, Charles Phillips, as Counsel for Courvoisier, was disgraced for solemnly avowing his “conscientious belief,” in the innocence of a wretch who had confessed his crime to him!

Nor in reviewing a case in which sound jurisprudence and common sense have been so scandalously violated, a case in which the most ignorant and illiterate jurymen, some scarcely able to read, and unacquainted with the laws of evidence, are called upon to pronounce judgment, the case of an unoffending man rigorously punished, condemned without proof, by the bare word, without one corroborating circumstance, of a precocious girl, who notyet in her teens, is mature and ripe enough in artifice and feminine subtilty, illustrating what depths of duplicity exhibit themselves in children who are carefully trained up in the way they shouldNOTgo. I am anxious to “improve the occasion” by criticizing theBishop of Winchester’sshare in this cruel prosecution. If the multitude bear false witness against their neighbour with thoughtless levity, it is not becoming in a right reverend Prelate to play with the fire of calumny, or lend his ear to suspicion, quite void of reason, as if “good name in man or woman wereNOTthe immediate jewel of the soul.” Of what use is a Bishop, with a Princely stipend, and a Lordly Castle, if he cannot personally investigate the truth of a serious charge against a “reverend friend and Brother?” Why condemn without a hearing? Why this eager credulity of clerical evil without some examination of the evidence? Why assume guilt? Why this hot haste to consign Mr. Hatch to his ignominious fate, the uncertainties of a most defective jurisprudence? Churchmen desire someCHARITYin Shepherds of the Sheep; they do not indeed expect the simplicity of a Parson Adams, in a Spiritual Lord, but they look for an example of that charity which “thinketh no evil,” and which “rejoiceth in the truth.”

What is a Bishop but a “tinkling cymbal,” if not endowed with moral courage to set his face like flint against vague imputations, and ignorant prejudices?

The Rt. Rev. Lord of Farnham Castle is energetic enough in pouncing upon, and worrying Deacons and Curates, and can deprive them of their licenses with a celerity not very edifying. Why not exhibit equal alacrity in enforcing the law against the Vicar of Camberwell, a Parish for thirteen years without a Resident Vicar?

“Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas.”

Why clip the wings of the dove, but give the raven, or vulture free course?

Mr. Daltonhas sent me some statistics of the Liverpool Lending Libraries. Total number of volumes 26,009. Individuals entitled to use the Libraries, 8,594. Number of volumes lent during the week, April 18th 1860,9,520. The pleasure derived by the sick, and those out of work, in being able to borrow books to read at their own homes is constantly coming under the notice of the Librarian. A person out of employment thus writes:

“Were I to be deprived of the use of books from your excellent Libraries, my life would become only a burthen and a blank.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, My task is done, and it is time to bid you adieu!

“Et vix sustinuit dicere lingua Vale!”

That word “Farewell” is always difficult to pronounce. Once again I beseech you toREVERSEthe decision of 1856. Many anxious eyes near and far off, are watching how you will vote on this occasion; do not disappoint their hopes, do not frustrate the intentions of the Legislature!

Liberavi animam meam. I have discoursed at some length from the same text, but I trust, though unavoidably discursive, you have not found me a tediousFeildePreacher. Need I remind you of the opportune reduction of the rates of halfpenny in the pound in the Parish rental. If you look at this question only as a Ratepayer, it must be gratifying to know that your money goes for Libraries rather than for Dungeons, for the supply of Books and Newspapers,NOTfor the support of paupers. Need I remind you how favourable to the cause I am feebly advocating is the fact, that as a Nation we arenowenjoying unexampled Prosperity and unbroken Peace! If, as I have shown, none should be entrusted with the Franchise who cannot read or write, do not grudge a trifling rate which would aid this great cause. Do not forget that arate supported News Roomis a step, nay, a stride, in the direction of theInstruction of All. Yes, the time is propitious! The course is clear before you—the race is glorious to run!

“Farewell! a word that must be, and hath been—A sound which makes us linger;—yet—farewell!”

Not in vain shall I have addressed you, if on your memories dwell some few thoughts that shall ripen intodeeds; not in vain, if at the fast approaching Public Meeting the Libraries’ Act is carried by acclamation. Not in vain shall I have written, if I have induced you,NOTto reject this Act!

MATTHEW FEILDE.

29, Grove Place, Lisson Grove,St. Marylebone.Ascension Day,May 17, 1860.

LONDON:Printed by A. Schulze, 13, Poland Street.

[11]The City of London, the wealthiest in the world, but not the best governed, is destitute of a Public Library. The babblement ofSidneythe vain, which in 1855 triumphed, now ceases to amuse and the shrill screams of thePeacockare no longer heard. If you wait for a scheme that will please thePeacocksand theSidneys, you will never do anything at all.

[13a]It is not for me to say how the wisdom of the wise slumbered on this particular Night, (May 21st, Paper Duty Repeal Bill—Lords Division). What do I see?Mirabile dictu! The Earl of Shaftesbury, the Premier’s Lord High Admiral of theSees, not to support his Patrons on a Field night like this is really too bad! To give a vote which seriously impedes education, and prevents the cheapening of School Books and Tracts, is consistent in the extreme. But not only is it refractory, but ungrateful opposition on the part of Lord Shaftesbury. A nobleman so favoured by Lord Palmerston as to issue hisCongé d’élire, permission to choose a Bishop, and on whosefiatthe Lord Chancellor appoints to Livings, ought not to have been a deserter when his vote was of so much importance.

[13b]That most genial Entertainer, and by far the cleverest Lecturer ever seen in London, combining great talent, with rare common sense and worldly knowledge,Albert Smith, now, alas! no more, sent me a good humoured note a few days ago, acknowledging “Who is my Neighbour?”

[15]Last Autumn the sad want of knowledge of the elementary rules of economy among Operatives wasstrikinglyand ruinously displayed, and it is obvious what a handle it affords to employers to be apathetic, if not hostile to extending the Franchise. Hence the need of “more light.”

[17]The Member for Sheffield is severe enough, is the Censor par excellence of small offenders—and pays full tithe of mint and anise, but with characteristic cowardice is dumb as a dog, has not one syllable of remonstrance against the titledUSURPERSin the House of Lords, who would retain an iniquitous tax on the Newspaper Press.

[19]There is no vote among the Pairs on the Repeal of the Paper duty that challenges more attention than that ofLord Brougham. What a miserable spectacle! Conspicuous by his absence, not one word,—not one syllable could Ex-Chancellor Brougham vouchsafe to strike off the fetters on knowledge in CentralEngland. Let me tell his Lordship his Mission speech on CentralAfricawas inopportune, and unpatriotic, when on that Monday evening there was a nobler field before him in the House of Lords to exert his eloquence. EnglandFIRST.

[22]The Meeting will be held at 12 o’clock on Monday, 18th June, Waterloo day, at the Literary Institution, 17, Edward Street, Portman Square. The friends of Progress are earnestly requested to COME EARLY.

[24]The objections to the extension of education are often ludicrous; some complain of servants reading instead of working. A friend at Liverpool, who had read my pamphlet, “Who is my Neighbour?” writes to me, “I think it is a very good thing that somebody thinks of the poor man. I once heard a Doctor of the Navy say, ‘if he had his way a poor man’s child should never have any learning whatever, as it made the Big Bugs look so small.’” I have often thought of his words.

[26a]The Bishop of Chichester is sagacious enough to comprehend the dangerous tendency of educational questions to his Order. Instinct tells him the dark abuses of the Church would quickly disappear before the light of intelligence. Here is the key to his opposition to the Paper Duty Repeal Bill, (May 21st. 1860.) A cheap well written Press is also denounced from the Palaces of Bangor, Cashel, and Exeter, and by several Absentee Bishops, including St. Davids, and the Bishop of Winchester. I am glad to notice the Bishop of this Diocese (London) with eight other Prelates voted for the Repeal.

[26b]The Church of England is the wealthiest Church in the world, yet it would scarcely be credited the number of well authenticated cases of appalling destitution that exist amongst some of the worthiest and hardest worked of its Clergy.

[30]Out of the 20,000 Clergy of England and Wales there are 10,000 with anincome of lessthan £100 a year; contrast this poverty with the rich Clergy, and an Archbishop of Canterbury with £15,000 a year, and York and London each 10,000, and Durham and Winchester each £8,000. The Laity denounce these shameful inequalities of remuneration.

[34]The Public Libraries Committee, Birmingham, have recommended a centralreferencelibrary, with Reading and News Rooms, amuseumand gallery of art, andfour district lending librarieswithnews rooms attached, should be established. The cost of the lending libraries, each to contain 3,000 volumes, and the expense of maintenance for one year would be £3,252, and the annual cost of each, after the first year, would be £370, or £1,480 for the four.

[35]Nasty minds are loth to part with dirty calumnies.

[38a]The Earl ofRosse’svote (Pair) against the Repeal of the duty upon paper is inconsistent indeed! His telescope is the wonder of the world, but for free glass what would it be? Here is a Peer, a great astronomer, coming down from his high tower and clipping the wings that carry knowledge.

[38b]Mr.Brightin a recent speech alludes to theTimesas a paper of “great eminence,” I suppose he means as an enormous liar, for he tells the Birmingham Meeting the crushing and withering truth that theTimesis at “this moment selling the dearest interests of this country forits own private purposes.”

Back to Index Next