Volume I Part 7 (1/2)
[”That you above all men should find fault with Kingsley or any one else for setting social above political reform, I own, amazes me. But it is not true in any sense of the words that Kingsley wanted Chartists to 'take up social and drop political reform.' In his first letter to Thomas Cooper (Life, vol. i. p. 182), he expressly says: 'I would shed the last drop of my blood for the social and _political_ emanc.i.p.ation of the people.' [The italics are mine.] Again, you misquote General Maurice's (not Mr. Maurice's) words, when you say that 'Maurice owned that his object was not to socialise society, but to Christianise Socialism.' General Maurice's words are: 'Beyond all doubt he dreaded becoming the head of a _party_ of Christian Socialists. His great wish was to Christianise Socialism, not to Christian-socialise the universe'
(Life, vol. ii. p. 47).
”Your story about the 'old grey-headed Chartist' and T. Hughes does not tally altogether with the statement in Mr. Maurice's Life (vol. ii. p.
13), but as I do not recollect being present (nor, I believe, were you) on the occasion, I cannot say which is right. I should have thought that an 'old greyheaded Chartist' would have had more courtesy as well as more sense than to hiss the Queen.”
Mr. Ludlow's letter throws a flood of light on the mistakes of Canon Kingsley and his colleagues. Mr. Ludlow ”is amazed that I above all men should blame any man for setting social above political reform.” It is now some fifty years since Mr. Ludlow first did me the honour to notice what I wrote or said. Yet I think he never knew me to subordinate political to social reform. I always thought it base to teach men to barter political freedom for social benefits. The leaders of early co-operation in the days before Mr. Ludlow knew it--being like Robert Owen, mostly of a Tory way of thinking--deprecated political reform, and thought its pursuit unnecessary, as their social remedy would do everything for the people. I always dissented from this doctrine and resented it, as the politician, if you do not watch him, will come some day and throw the savings of a century into a sea of imperial blood. Mr.
Ludlow quotes a letter from Kingsley to Thomas Cooper, in which he says he ”would shed the last drop of his blood for the social and political emanc.i.p.ation of the people.” What! for the ”smoke of the pit”? as he described the agitation for the Charter. What! ”shed his blood” for a ”Morrison pill measure”--shed the last drop of his blood” for a poor, bald, const.i.tution-mongering cry as ever he heard”? I agree that this is extraordinary political enthusiasm. Still it was no proof that Kingsley was a Chartist, and that was my point. General Maurice's version of his father's saying that ”his object was not to socialise society,” shows that Maurice cared no more for Socialism (which at that time meant co-operative communism) than Kingsley cared for Chartism. Both meant well to the people in a theological--not a political way. The old grey-headed Chartist hissed the Queen's office, not herself. Republicans ever made that distinction.]
CHAPTER IX. THE OLD POSTILLION
Besides Church Chartists and Positivist Chartists, there were Tory Chartists, of whom I add an account, and a list of those among them who were paid in the days of their hired activity. But the business of this chapter is with the Old Postillion, the founder of the real Chartists, who taught them and who knew them all.
Of course I mean Francis Place, who was always ready to mount and drive the coach of the leaders of the people. Though he took that modest and useful position, it was he who determined the route, made the map of the country, and fixed the destination of the journey. Joseph Parkes himself, known as ”The People's Attorney-General,” first addressed Place as the ”Old Postillion.”* James Watson, a working-cla.s.s politician (whom Place could always trust), wrote of him at his death as the ”English Franklin,”** a very good t.i.tle, having regard to the strength of the common-sense characteristics of Place.
*Wallas's ”Life of Place,” p. 346. Longmans, Green & Co., 1898.
**Reasoner, No. 409, vol. xvi., March 28 1854.
One advantage (there were not many) of my imprisonment which I have never ceased to value, was that it led to my acquaintance with Place.
From him I learned many things of great use to me in after life.
One thing he said to me was: ”A man who is always running after his character seldom has a character worth the chase.” Some far-seeing qualification was generally present in what he said. For a man who is ”always” vindicating himself becomes tiresome and ineffectual. Yet now and then, sooner or later, and often better later then sooner, a personal explanation may be useful. Printed actionable imputations were made against Cobbett of which no notice was taken--so far as I knew--which created in many minds an ineffaceable personal prejudice against him.
Once imputations were published concerning me which justified contradiction. It came to pa.s.s that they were certified as true by a person of mark. Then I proposed to show that the allegations were untrue. Whereupon I was a.s.sured it would be to my disadvantage with many with whom I stood well, which meant that should I prove I was not a rascal I should lose many of my best friends, which shows the curious perplexities of personal explanation. Nevertheless, I made it.* Mr.
Place told me that in the course of his career as defender of the people, ”he had been charged with every crime known to the Newgate Calendar save wilful murder.” A needless reservation, for that would have been believed. He let them pa.s.s, merely keeping a record of the accusations to see if their variety included any originality. There was one charge brought against him which to this day prejudices many against him. The one thought to be most overwhelming was that he was a ”tailor”
at Charing Cross. After that, argument against the principles he maintained was deemed superfluous; as though following a trade of utility disqualified a man's opinions on public affairs; while one who did nothing, and whose life and ideas were useless to mankind, might be listened to with deference.
*”Warpath of Opinion.”
In 1849 _Chambers's Journal_ published an article on the ”Reaction of Philanthropy,” against which I made vehement objection in an article in the _Spirit of the Age_, of which _Chambers's Journal_ took, for them, the unusual course of replying. The _Spirit of the Age_ coming under Place's notice, he sent me the following letter, which I cite exactly as it was expressed, in his quaint, vigorous and candid way:--
”Brompton Square,
”March 3, 1849.
”Master Holyoake,--I have read your paper of observations on a paper written by Chambers, and dislike it very much. You a.s.sume an evil disposition in Chambers, and have laid yourself open to the same imputation. This dispute now consists of three of us, you and I and Chambers--all three of us, in vulgar parlance, being philanthropists. I have not read Chambers, but expect to find, from what you have said and quoted, that he, like yourself, has been led by his feelings, and not by his understanding, and has therefore written a mischievous paper. I will read this paper and decide for myself. Knowledge is not wisdom. The most conspicuous proof of this is the conduct of Lord Brougham. He knows many things, more, indeed, than most men, but is altogether incapable of combining all that relates to any one case, i.e., understanding it thoroughly, and he therefore never exhausts any subject, as a man of a more enlarged understanding would do. This, too, is your case. I think I may say that not any one of your reasonings is as perfect as it ought to be, and if I were in a condition to do so, I would make this quite plain to you by carrying out your defective _notions_--reasonings, if you like the term better.
”It will, I am sure, be admitted, at least as far as your thinking can go, that neither yourself, nor Chambers, nor myself, would intentionally write a word for the purpose of misleading, much less injuring the working people; yet your paper must, as far as it may be known to them, not only have that tendency, but a much worse one; that of depraving them, by teaching them, in their public capacity, to seek revenge, to an extent which, could it pervade the whole ma.s.s, must lead to slaughter among the human race--the beasts of prey called mankind; for such they have ever been since they have had existence, and such as they must remain for an indefinite time, if not for ever. Their ever being anything else is with me a forlorn hope, while yet, as I can do no better, I continue in my course of life to act as if I really had a strong hope of immense improvement for the good of all.--Yours, really and truly,
”Francis Place.”
There was value in Mr. Place's friends.h.i.+p. He was able to measure the minds of those with whom he came in contact, and for those for whom he cared he would do the service of showing to them the limits within which they were working. It was thus he took trouble to be useful to those who could never requite him, by putting strong, wise thoughts before them.
Elsewhere* I have related how Place on one occasion--when all London was excited, and the Duke of Wellington indignant and repellant--went on a deputation to him, and was dismissed with the ominous words:
*”Sixty Years,” vol. i. chap. 40.