Part 4

“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 the _New York Herald_, a one, or two cent daily paper, owned and edited by the _black mail levying_ vagabond, and fugitive from _Scotland_, _James Gordon Bennett_; a paper which does its best to fan the flame of discord, by abusing “the Britishers.” The patriotic _Times_ quotes the lying _Herald_ as 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 Scotchman _Bennett_, and a Somersetshire man, _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 by _Locke_, the degenerate Englishman, who the _Illustrated Times_ describes as an “American.” The _New York Era_, edited and owned by _R. A. Locke_, and _J. 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 of _misleading_, instead of _leading aright_ public 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 is _not_ white, _nor_ black so _very black_.” Talk of the _Times_ as the LEADING Journal of EUROPE! If daily to utter unblushing falsehoods, and odious calumnies, knowing them to be such, constitutes _leadership_ in Journalism, in this sense [à la HEENAN, the Irish American Bouncer] the _Times_ is “_The Champion_ of 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 produced in a Court of Justice,” clearly denotes that I am NOT an unjust Judge, in sentencing the _Times_ to 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, the _Times_ tries to mislead and insult the judgment of the public, by representing the “ingenuous” EUGENIE PLUMMER as “the daughter of RESPECTABLE and 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, the _Times_ is “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 can NOW see 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” the _Times_ (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, the _Times_, is a “mercantile concern,” and does not keep a conscience, and sneers and laughs at the least earnestness in the Editorial department. Perhaps MR. 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 the _Times_, a _locus penetentiæ_, but as a sine quâ non, 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 Serjeant SHEE’S speech. 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 not yet 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 should NOT go. I am anxious to “improve the occasion” by criticizing the BISHOP OF WINCHESTER’S share 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 were NOT the 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 some CHARITY in 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. DALTON has 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 to REVERSE the 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 tedious FEILDE Preacher. 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, NOT for 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 are _now_ enjoying 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 a RATE SUPPORTED NEWS ROOM is a step, nay, a stride, in the direction of the INSTRUCTION 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 into deeds; 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, NOT to 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.

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES.

{11} The City of London, the wealthiest in the world, but not the best governed, is destitute of a Public Library. The babblement of SIDNEY the vain, which in 1855 triumphed, now ceases to amuse and the shrill screams of the PEACOCK are no longer heard. If you wait for a scheme that will please the _Peacocks_ and the _Sidneys_, 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 the _Sees_, 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 his _Congé d’élire_, permission to choose a Bishop, and on whose _fiat_ the 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 was _strikingly_ and 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 titled USURPERS in 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 of LORD 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 Central _England_. Let me tell his Lordship his Mission speech on Central _Africa_ was inopportune, and unpatriotic, when on that Monday evening there was a nobler field before him in the House of Lords to exert his eloquence. England FIRST.

{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 an _income of less_ than £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 central _reference_ library, with Reading and News Rooms, a _museum_ and gallery of art, and _four district lending libraries_ with _news 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 of ROSSE’S vote (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. BRIGHT in a recent speech alludes to the _Times_ as 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 the _Times_ is at “this moment selling the dearest interests of this country for _its own private purposes_.”