Part 1 (1/2)
Alton Locke, Tailor And Poet.
by Rev. Charles Kingsley et al.
PREFATORY MEMOIR.
The tract appended to this preface has been chosen to accompany this reprint of _Alton Locke_ in order to ill.u.s.trate, from another side, a distinct period in the life of Charles Kingsley, which stands out very much by itself. It may be taken roughly to have extended from 1848 to 1856. It has been thought that they require a preface, and I have undertaken to write it, as one of the few survivors of those who were most intimately a.s.sociated with the author at the time to which the works refer.
No easy task; for, look at them from what point we will, these years must be allowed to cover an anxious and critical time in modern English history; but, above all, in the history of the working cla.s.ses. In the first of them the Chartist agitation came to a head and burst, and was followed by the great movement towards a.s.sociation, which, developing in two directions and by two distinct methods--represented respectively by the amalgamated Trades Unions, and Co-operative Societies--has in the intervening years entirely changed the conditions of the labour question in England, and the relations of the working to the upper and middle cla.s.ses. It is with this, the social and industrial side of the history of those years, that we are mainly concerned here. Charles Kingsley has left other and more important writings of those years. But these are beside our purpose, which is to give some such slight sketch of him as may be possible within the limits of a preface, in the character in which he was first widely known, as the most outspoken and powerful of those who took the side of the labouring cla.s.ses, at a critical time--the crisis in a word, when they abandoned their old political weapons, for the more potent one of union and a.s.sociation, which has since carried them so far.
To no one of all those to whom his memory is very dear can this seem a superfluous task, for no writer was ever more misunderstood or better abused at the time, and after the lapse of almost a quarter of a century the misunderstanding would seem still to hold its ground. For through all the many notices of him which appeared after his death in last January, there ran the same apologetic tone as to this part of his life's work.
While generally, and as a rule cordially, recognizing his merits as an author and a man, the writers seemed to agree in pa.s.sing lightly over this ground. When it was touched it was in a tone of apology, sometimes tinged with sarcasm, as in the curt notice in the ”Times”--”He was understood, to be the Parson Lot of those 'Politics for the People' which made no little noise in their time, and as Parson Lot he declared in burning language that to his mind the fault in the 'People's Charter' was that it did not go nearly far enough.” And so the writer turns away, as do most of his brethren, leaving probably some such impression as this on the minds of most of their readers--”Young men of power and genius are apt to start with wild notions. He was no exception. Parson Lot's sayings and doings may well be pardoned for what Charles Kingsley said and did in after years; so let us drop a decent curtain over them, and pa.s.s on.”
Now, as very nearly a generation has pa.s.sed since that signature used to appear at the foot of some of the most n.o.ble and vigorous writing of our time, readers of to-day are not unlikely to accept this view, and so to find further confirmation and encouragement in the example of Parson Lot for the mischievous and cowardly distrust of anything like enthusiasm amongst young men, already sadly too prevalent in England. If it were only as a protest against this ”surtout point de zele” spirit, against which it was one of Charles Kingsley's chief tasks to fight with all his strength, it is well that the facts should be set right. This done, readers may safely be left to judge what need there is for the apologetic tone in connection with the name, the sayings, and doings of Parson Lot.
My first meeting with him was in the autumn of 1848, at the house of Mr.
Maurice, who had lately been appointed Reader of Lincolns Inn. No parochial work is attached to that post, so Mr. Maurice had undertaken the charge of a small district in the parish in which he lived, and had set a number of young men, chiefly students of the Inns of Court who had been attracted by his teaching, to work in it. Once a week, on Monday evenings, they used to meet at his house for tea, when their own work was reported upon and talked over. Suggestions were made and plans considered; and afterwards a chapter of the Bible was read and discussed. Friends and old pupils of Mr.
Maurice's, residing in the country, or in distant parts of London, were in the habit of coming occasionally to these meetings, amongst whom was Charles Kingsley. He had been recently appointed Rector of Eversley, and was already well known as the author of _The Saint's Tragedy_, his first work, which contained the germ of much that he did afterwards.
His poem, and the high regard and admiration which Mr. Maurice had for him, made him a notable figure in that small society, and his presence was always eagerly looked for. What impressed me most about him when we first met was, his affectionate deference to Mr. Maurice, and the vigour and incisiveness of everything he said and did. He had the power of cutting out what he meant in a few clear words, beyond any one I have ever met.
The next thing that struck one was the ease with which he could turn from playfulness, or even broad humour, to the deepest earnest. At first I think this startled most persons, until they came to find out the real deep nature of the man; and that his broadest humour had its root in a faith which realized, with extraordinary vividness, the fact that G.o.d's Spirit is actively abroad in the world, and that Christ is in every man, and made him hold fast, even in his saddest moments,--and sad moments were not infrequent with him,--the a.s.surance that, in spite of all appearances, the world was going right, and would go right somehow, ”Not your way, or my way, but G.o.d's way.” The contrast of his humility and audacity, of his distrust in himself and confidence in himself, was one of those puzzles which meet us daily in this world of paradox. But both qualities gave him a peculiar power for the work he had to do at that time, with which the name of Parson Lot is a.s.sociated.
It was at one of these gatherings, towards the end of 1847 or early in 1848, when Kingsley found himself in a minority of one, that he said jokingly, he felt much as Lot must have felt in the Cities of the Plain, when he seemed as one that mocked to his sons-in-law. The name Parson Lot was then and there suggested, and adopted by him, as a familiar _nom de plume_, He used it from 1848 up to 1856; at first constantly, latterly much more rarely. But the name was chiefly made famous by his writings in ”Politics for the People,” the ”Christian Socialist,” and the ”Journal of a.s.sociation,” three periodicals which covered the years from '48 to '52; by ”Alton Locke”; and by tracts and pamphlets, of which the best known, ”Cheap Clothes and Nasty,” is now republished.
In order to understand and judge the sayings and writings of Parson Lot fairly, it is necessary to recall the condition of the England of that day. Through the winter of 1847-8, amidst wide-spread distress, the cloud of discontent, of which Chartism was the most violent symptom, had been growing darker and more menacing, while Ireland was only held down by main force. The breaking-out of the revolution on the Continent in February increased the danger. In March there were riots in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, and other large towns. On April 7th, ”the Crown and Government Security Bill,” commonly called ”the Gagging Act,” was introduced by the Government, the first reading carried by 265 to 24, and the second a few days later by 452 to 35. On the 10th of April the Government had to fill London with troops, and put the Duke of Wellington in command, who barricaded the bridges and Downing Street, garrisoned the Bank and other public buildings, and closed the Horse Guards.
When the momentary crisis had pa.s.sed, the old soldier declared in the House of Lords that ”no great society had ever suffered as London had during the preceding days,” while the Home Secretary telegraphed to all the chief magistrates of the kingdom the joyful news that the peace had been kept in London. In April, the Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Crown and Government Security Bill in the House of Lords, referred to the fact that ”meetings were daily held, not only in London, but in most of the manufacturing towns, the avowed object of which was to array the people against the const.i.tuted authority of these realms.” For months afterwards the Chartist movement, though plainly subsiding, kept the Government in constant anxiety; and again in June, the Bank, the Mint, the Custom House, and other public offices were filled with troops, and the Houses of Parliament were not only garrisoned but provisioned as if for a siege.
From that time, all fear of serious danger pa.s.sed away. The Chartists were completely discouraged, and their leaders in prison; and the upper and middle cla.s.ses were recovering rapidly from the alarm which had converted a million of them into special constables, and were beginning to doubt whether the crisis had been so serious after all, whether the disaffection had ever been more than skin deep. At this juncture a series of articles appeared in the _Morning Chronicle_ on ”London Labour and the London Poor,”
which startled the well-to-do cla.s.ses out of their jubilant and scornful att.i.tude, and disclosed a state of things which made all fair minded people wonder, not that there had been violent speaking and some rioting, but that the metropolis had escaped the scenes which had lately been enacted in Paris, Vienna, Berlin, and other Continental capitals.
It is only by an effort that one can now realize the strain to which the nation was subjected during that winter and spring, and which, of course, tried every individual man also, according to the depth and earnestness of his political and social convictions and sympathies. The group of men who were working under Mr. Maurice were no exceptions to the rule. The work of teaching and visiting was not indeed neglected, but the larger questions which were being so strenuously mooted--the points of the people's charter, the right of public meeting, the att.i.tude of the labouring-cla.s.s to the other cla.s.ses--absorbed more and more of their attention. Kingsley was very deeply impressed with the gravity and danger of the crisis--more so, I think, than almost any of his friends; probably because, as a country parson, he was more directly in contact with one cla.s.s of the poor than any of them. How deeply he felt for the agricultural poor, how faithfully he reflected the pa.s.sionate and restless sadness of the time, may be read in the pages of ”Yeast,” which was then coming out in ”Fraser.” As the winter months went on this sadness increased, and seriously affected his health.
”I have a longing,” he wrote to Mr. Ludlow, ”to do _something_--what, G.o.d only knows. You say, 'he that believeth will not make haste,' but I think he that believeth must _make_ haste, or get d.a.m.ned with the rest. But I will do anything that anybody likes--I have no confidence in myself or in anything but G.o.d. I am not great enough for such times, alas! '_ne pour faire des vers_,' as Camille Desmoulins said.”
This longing became so strong as the crisis in April approached, that he came to London to see what could be done, and to get help from Mr. Maurice, and those whom he had been used to meet at his house. He found them a divided body. The majority were sworn in as special constables, and several had openly sided with the Chartists; while he himself, with Mr. Maurice and Mr. Ludlow, were unable to take active part with either side. The following extract from a letter to his wife, written on the 9th of April, shows how he was employed during these days, and how he found the work which he was in search of, the first result of which was the publication of ”those 'Politics for the People' which made no small noise in their times”--
”_April_ 11th, 1848.--The events of a week have been crowded into a few hours. I was up till four this morning--writing posting placards, under Maurice's auspices, one of which is to be got out to-morrow morning, the rest when we can get money. Could you not beg a few sovereigns somewhere to help these poor wretches to the truest alms?--to words, texts from the Psalms, anything which may keep even one man from cutting his brother's throat to-morrow or Friday? _Pray, pray, help us._ Maurice has given me a highest proof of confidence. He has taken me to counsel, and we are to have meetings for prayer and study, when I come up to London, and we are to bring out a new set of real ”Tracts for the Times,” addressed to the higher orders. Maurice is _a la hauteur des circonstances_--determined to make a decisive move. He says, if the Oxford Tracts did wonders, why should not we? Pray for us. A glorious future is opening, and both Maurice and Ludlow seem to have driven away all my doubts and sorrow, and I see the blue sky again, and my Father's face!”
The arrangements for the publication of ”Politics for the People” were soon made; and in one of the earliest numbers, for May, 1848, appeared the paper which furnishes what ground there is for the statement, already quoted, that ”he declared, in burning language, that the People's Charter did not go far enough” It was No. 1 of ”Parson Lot's Letters to the Chartists.” Let us read it with its context.
”I am not one of those who laugh at your pet.i.tion of the 10th of April: I have no patience with those who do. Suppose there were but 250,000 honest names on that sheet--suppose the Charter itself were all stuff--yet you have still a right to fair play, a patient hearing, an honourable and courteous answer, whichever way it may be. But _my only quarrel with the Charter is that it does not go far enough in reform_. I want to see you _free_, but I do not see that what you ask for will give you what you want.
I think you have fallen into just the same mistake as the rich, of whom you complain--the very mistake which has been our curse and our nightmare. I mean the mistake of fancying that _legislative_ reform is _social_ reform, or that men's hearts can be changed by Act of Parliament. If any one will tell me of a country where a Charter made the rogues honest, or the idle industrious, I will alter my opinion of the Charter, but not till then. It disappointed me bitterly when I read it. It seemed a harmless cry enough, but a poor, bald const.i.tution-mongering cry as ever I heard. The French cry of 'organization of labour' is worth a thousand of it, but yet that does not go to the bottom of the matter by many a mile.” And then, after telling how he went to buy a number of the Chartist newspaper, and found it in a shop which sold ”flash songsters,” ”the Swell's Guide,” and ”dirty milksop French novels,” and that these publications, and a work called ”The Devil's Pulpit,” were puffed in its columns, he goes on, ”These are strange times.
I thought the devil used to befriend tyrants and oppressors, but he seems to have profited by Burns' advice to 'tak a thought and mend.' I thought the struggling freeman's watchword was: 'G.o.d sees my wrongs.' 'He hath taken the matter into His own hands.' 'The poor committeth himself unto Him, for He is the helper of the friendless.' But now the devil seems all at once to have turned philanthropist and patriot, and to intend himself to fight the good cause, against which he has been fighting ever since Adam's time. I don't deny, my friends, it is much cheaper and pleasanter to be reformed by the devil than by G.o.d; for G.o.d will only reform society on the condition of our reforming every man his own self--while the devil is quite ready to help us to mend the laws and the parliament, earth and heaven, without ever starting such an impertinent and 'personal' request, as that a man should mend himself. _That_ liberty of the subject he will always respect.”--”But I say honestly, whomsoever I may offend, the more I have read of your convention speeches and newspaper articles, the more I am convinced that too many of you are trying to do G.o.d's work with the devil's tools. What is the use of brilliant language about peace, and the majesty of order, and universal love, though it may all be printed in letters a foot long, when it runs in the same train with ferocity, railing, mad, one-eyed excitement, talking itself into a pa.s.sion like a street woman? Do you fancy that after a whole column spent in stirring men up to fury, a few twaddling copybook headings about 'the sacred duty of order' will lay the storm again? What spirit is there but the devil's spirit in bloodthirsty threats of revenge?”--”I denounce the weapons which you have been deluded into employing to gain you your rights, and the indecency and profligacy which you are letting be mixed up with them! Will you strengthen and justify your enemies? Will you disgust and cripple your friends? Will you go out of your way to do wrong? When you can be free by fair means will you try foul? When you might keep the name of Liberty as spotless as the Heaven from which she comes, will you defile her with blasphemy, beastliness, and blood? When the cause of the poor is the cause of Almighty G.o.d, will you take it out of His hands to entrust it to the devil? These are bitter questions, but as you answer them so will you prosper.”
In Letter II. he tells them that if they have followed, a different ”Reformer's Guide” from his, it is ”mainly the fault of us parsons, who have never told you that the true 'Reformer's Guide,' the true poor man's book, the true 'Voice of G.o.d against tyrants, idlers, and humbugs, was the Bible.' The Bible demands for the poor as much, and more, than they demand for themselves; it expresses the deepest yearnings of the poor man's heart far more n.o.bly, more searchingly, more daringly, more eloquently than any modern orator has done. I say, it gives a ray of hope--say rather a certain dawn of a glorious future, such as no universal suffrage, free trade, communism, organization of labour, or any other Morrison's-pill-measure can give--and yet of a future, which will embrace all that is good in these--a future of conscience, of justice, of freedom, when idlers and oppressors shall no more dare to plead parchments and Acts of Parliament for their iniquities. I say the Bible promises this, not in a few places only, but throughout; it is the thought which runs through the whole Bible, justice from G.o.d to those whom men oppress, glory from G.o.d to those whom men despise. Does that look like the invention of tyrants, and prelates? You may sneer, but give me a fair hearing, and if I do not prove my words, then call me the same hard name which I shall call any man, who having read the Bible, denies that it is the poor man's comfort and the rich man's warning.”
In subsequent numbers (as afterwards in the ”Christian Socialist,” and the ”Journal of a.s.sociation”) he dwells in detail on the several popular cries, such as, ”a fair day's wage for a fair day's work,” ill.u.s.trating them from the Bible, urging his readers to take it as the true Radical Reformer's Guide, if they were longing for the same thing as he was longing for--to see all humbug, idleness, injustice, swept out of England. His other contributions to these periodicals consisted of some of his best short poems: ”The Day of the Lord;” ”The Three Fishers;” ”Old and New,” and others; of a series of Letters on the Frimley murder; of a short story called ”The Nun's Pool,” and of some most charming articles on the pictures in the National Gallery, and the collections in the British Museum, intended to teach the English people how to use and enjoy their own property.
I think I know every line which was ever published under the signature Parson Lot; and I take it upon myself to say, that there is in all that ”burning language” nothing more revolutionary than the extracts given above from his letters to the Chartists.