Chapter II: Part 2

It would ill become me to set up as an _Episcopus Episcoporum_, believing, however, as I do that this assembling of the Laity and Clergy would tend to Christian UNITY I cannot resist urgently insisting on this Church Reform. Speaking for my own order the Laity are hardly dealt with! How many real grievances they must now silently endure, without the slightest power to remove or abate them! How much which relates to discipline, and the conducting the services is diametrically opposed to the wishes of the Laity! How often has the length of the Morning Service been objected to. Only the other day Lord EBURY did what he could to shorten the services, but in vain; there seems a superstitious reverence for repetition, for retaining certain phrases which must strike high, low, and broad Churchmen as objectionable. The Prayer for both Houses of Parliament under our “most religious and gracious Queen” is truly admirable, and how any Lords Spiritual and Temporal can join in such a comprehensive petition and yet vote against a great Educational boon like the repeal of the last tax on Knowledge I for one cannot understand. But in this Prayer I demur to applying the same term “most gracious” to the Queen, and to the KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. Who can deny that damp, ill-ventilated, or icy cold Churches, are not fruitful causes of disease? I attended the Sons of the Clergy Festival, under the Dome of St. Paul’s Cathedral on the 23rd May. It was a warm summer’s day, but owing to the intense cold rushing currents of air, I with others was obliged to leave. People were shivering with cold—and this in the 19th century! A boasted scientific age! A few years ago I was at St. Paul’s Sons of the Clergy Festival, and was then compelled to leave on account of the bitter cold. I wrote on that occasion a polite note to Dean Milman, in which I urged that some means of warming the Cathedral should be adopted. I received no reply; and this is not surprising, for a more _Judaic_ High Priest—a very _Caiphas_ cannot be found than _Henry Hart_ Milman. Why there might have been some excuse for thus trifling with the Public health at the time my Grand-father was Prebendary of this Cathedral, because the appliances of science were not in his day known. Let me tell this supercilious Priest that a curious public are enquiring of what use are DEANS and CANONS with their thousands a year, if they do not even take the trouble to make their Churches comfortable? It is very discreditable to the Dean and Canons that such beggarly parsimony should year after year prevail. Why not FREE ACCESS to this noble Edifice? Why this miserable Clerical impost of 4_s_ 2_d_? Why it is an Education of itself to survey

“until thy mind hath got by heart
Its eloquent proportions.”

“The Dome—the vast and wondrous Dome,”

Sir Christopher Wren’s rare masterpiece, of whom it was said,

“Si monumentum requiris,
Circurnspice,”

“if you want his monument, look around.” This glorious Temple, which stands alone for grandeur, worthiest of GOD, the Holy and the True, deserves a better fate than to be starved by its Priests on the pretext of a false and wretched economy. Every thing that ministers to comfort is seen in a nobleman’s mansion, shall GOD’S HOUSE alone be dishonoured by such paltry and mean frugality? Who can deny the attendance of invalids at Matins, with litany and communion, is not itself an ordeal, but to combine this length of Service with a Sermon of an hour’s duration is an infliction of no ordinary character. I do not say that when PAUL has served for a text, that PLATO or EPICTETUS have preached, but who shall say the Preacher does not too often exhibit himself and _his crude_ ideas, and NOT the Bible’s. “_It is this text of mine_,” that too often proceeds from the lips of ostentatious Preachers.

It is unreasonable to expect that 20,000 clergymen of the Church of England, are qualified as preachers, shall be able, one and all, at least twice a week, to talk or read something that will command attention for fifty or sixty minutes? Why not some UNIFORMITY in the Prayer, or no Prayer, before sermon? Why not some authorized version of psalms and hymns to be sung in all the churches? Why this diversity? The layman has a right to say to the Bishop, if you forbid me to take any part in the government and discipline of the Church, I cannot contribute towards the “extension” of such injustice. You nominate or appoint a clerk, who _ought to know how to read_; yet how few are capable of MERELY READING the Service, I will not say with propriety alone, but with common decency. Who has not “suffered some,” to use an American phrase, by the deplorable deficiencies in pronunciation, and accentuation? Who with any ear for fit cadence, is not pained to be obliged to listen to the monotonous whining of the simple and beautiful Ritual of the Church of England? It is from the reading desk and the pulpit that boys and girls are told they will hear their mother tongue in all its purity. But is this true? It is not only not true, but the very reverse of truth. The forms of Prayer and Thanksgivings, as literary compositions, are perfect specimens of style. What English prose will venture to challenge a comparison with the dignity and melody of the Collects? And yet, remember, the musical and rhetorical excellence of the Liturgy, consists chiefly of translations from the Latin! Surely such persuasive, such affecting petitions to Heaven deserve a better fate, than to be murdered by ruthless and ignorant men who have missed their vocation. Some mouth and mutter, some rant and roar, others simper and squeak, and not a few read the Service with the same apathy as an animal chewing the cud.

Yet the Laity of the Diocese of London cannot interfere, cannot even hint to such readers they had better retire. This overgrown diocese contains two millions and a half of inhabitants. It is divided into four hundred and thirty-three parishes, with eight hundred and fifty-five clergy. Common sense dictates dividing the Diocese of London. Why not a Bishop of WESTMINSTER? Yet not one word can laymen utter on such topics, in any deliberative church assembly, and I submit the time has come when all this must be REFORMED, and when the Diocese of London must be at UNITY in itself. {30}

It was my intention to have said a few words about Lord John Russell’s scheme of Reform, but I can only just glance with some pity on his poor little forlorn, tender Bill. I can only view it as an instalment of better things to come. The ignoring the claims of £10 or £12 Lodgers in great London parishes especially, would be an act of extreme injustice, and I hope in Committee, the Foreign Secretary will adopt this clause to be proposed by Mr. James.

My extreme anxiety to carry the Libraries Act in St. Marylebone, must atone for any repetitions of last warning words to the Ratepayers. Believe me the enemies of Literature, of innocent, intellectual recreation, are too astute to tolerate fair, or indeed any, arguments in favour of this most hopeful Legislative enactment. They are well aware that reason is too strong for nonsense in the long run, and that if this wise proposal is argued on its own merits, and not hashed or mixed up with Parochial extravagance, or misgovernment, and other extraneous matter, that the ground on which they stand will sink from beneath them. They tell you “this is not the time to agitate the question,” and that it is “inexpedient at present,” and will weary you with some unintelligible jargon about voting against the Act, but at the same time agreeing to the “general principle!” Such miserable, specious excuses are invariably set up in all cases which will not bear the force of argument. The _right time_ with such mean obstructives, let me assure you, will NEVER _arrive_. Once again I beg to remind you that a majority of TWO-THIRDS of the Ratepayers present at the Meeting settles the question of rejecting or adopting the Act, and as by a strange blunder no Poll can be demanded, I entreat you to be early in your attendance, and give a plumper for this truly benevolent measure.

Let me glance for a moment at the Requisition to the Overseers, signed by His Serene Highness Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, by the Minister of St. Mark’s, by Lord Radstock, four Ladies, the Editors of the _Athenæum_, and _Lancet_, a Rabbi, or Professor, Doctors of Medicine, and Surgeons; also by Mr. Churchwarden Carr, Vestrymen, and other respectable Ratepayers, including Ernest de Bunsen, Abbey Lodge, Joseph Grote Esq., Gloucester Place, S. H. Harlowe Esq., North Bank, and R. H. Collyer, M.D., Alpha Road. Strange meeting of names exemplifying as it does, that UNITY of design, on which the Chaplain of Lincoln’s Inn so delights to dwell; it is a paper of no ordinary interest. Let me gladly acknowledge subscriptions towards defraying the expenses of promoting this great social measure. Mr. Nicholay, 10_s._ Edwin, James Esq., M.P. £1 1_s._, Ernest Hart Esq., F.R.C.S. 10_s._ Sir Francis H. Goldsmid Bart, M.P. £1 1_s._, Mr. Michell, 5_s._, Dakin & Co., 10_s._, W. J. Fox Esq., M.P. 5_s._, J. Grote Esq., 10_s._, and S. H. Harlowe Esq. 5_s._

Gentlemen, As friends of Progress, of more Intellectual Light, and knowing the bitter fruits of Ignorance, I trust you will endeavour to be EARLY at the Meeting. BIS DAT QUI CITO DAT. I entreat you to bear in mind that a small rate for LIBRARIES or MUSEUMS, or NEWS ROOMS, if tax it can fairly be termed, is like the quality of mercy,

“it is twice bless’d;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes.”

“Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.” Let those memorable words, “_She hath done what she could_,” be applied to you, and what ought to be done for St. Marylebone, do at once. “The night cometh, when no man can work,” and there is no knowledge, or wisdom, or project in the grave.

Allow me to offer a few suggestions as to the conduct of the Meeting. No person can take the chair as a right. A Churchwarden, _ex-officio_ claiming the chair to the prejudice of the Rector, is indeed an anomaly. You must elect a Chairman, uninfluenced by Party spirit, for on your choice of the right man very much will depend. I have known Churchwardens, chairmen of Library Meetings who had never read the Act, and knew or cared nothing of its scope and tendency, and yet in the shallow guise of “friends of the Poor,” and to gain a little fleeting applause, have not scrupled, to get out of the difficulty to misrepresent or abuse it, or condemn it with faint praise.

Gentlemen, I have much pleasure in stating that the Resolution will probably be moved by that earnest friend of the working classes W. J. FOX Esq., and that it will be seconded or supported by the REV. J. M. BELLEW. To hear two such advocates of Libraries for the People is of itself a treat of no ordinary kind. The great anti-corn law speeches of Mr. Fox are not forgotten, and I am sure the honourable member for Oldham on so congenial a topic as the Instruction of All, will not fail to please. The crowded Church of St. Mark attests MR. BELLEW’S well deserved popularity, and that neglected art among clergymen—the art of READING, the reverend gentleman has attained to perfection. I could not but think as Mr. Bellew read the twelfth chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, that it would be well for the Church if there were more such splendid Readers, and eloquent Preachers, and if in the Ordering of Deacons, the Bishop put the question to every Candidate for Orders, “Can you read?” or “Have you passed your examination in the Art of Reading?”

To opponents I would say are you content to be taxed £70,000 a year for Expenditure at the Workhouse? At the utmost a £2000 Library Rate would be required from the large body of ratepayers, which is not worth consideration, and which would be saved over and over again in the improved habits of the people. Exercise then a little _commercial foresight_, and you will perceive that it is a _good investment_ and will prove an economical Institution.

I should like to see the Proposal to open to the people the portals to enter into communion with the good, the witty, and the wise, carried by a unanimous vote. At the recent Birmingham Meeting, Mr. Gameson opposed, but could scarcely obtain a hearing, for the 1500 Burgesses were in no humour to listen to his worn out, used up fallacies; and to Mr. Dawson was left the not difficult task of reply, who in the course of an amusing speech said that

“whenever he could hear of a rate that was to be spent for a good
purpose, he took as much pleasure in advocating it as in tickling up
a lazy ox with a goad.”

The Mayor, Thomas Lloyd Esq., said that nothing could 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 for LIBRARIES and MUSEUMS, but also for NEWS 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 are NOT Vestrymen.

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 from ABSORBING all 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 prescribe the procuring the Libraries’ Act for “promoting the establishment of Free Public Libraries and MUSEUMS in 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. LENDING Libraries and NEWS Rooms are the great want, and NOT Museums. Why will MR. ROUPELL, M.P., in advocating a South London Museum persist in IGNORING Mr. Ewart’s _Museum’s_ Act? 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 want _News Rooms_ open to all comers, _not_ Museums.

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 the DAILY TELEGRAPH—to talk of the “MORAL tone” 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 the _Telegraph_ from 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} Serjeant SHEE’S is very dirty money, but this TELEGRAPH’S is worse. It lowers a noble vocation, and sinks it to PRESSGANGISM.

The critic of the _Daily Telegraph_ has 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 the CHILDE will live as long as the language endures:

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

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

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 the _Telegraph_, 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 the _Telegraph_, who daily reminds us that

“Dulness is ever apt to magnify.”

Having so often discussed the advantages of Newspaper Reading, it becomes a duty again to refer to such glaring misleaders as the veering _Times_, which affects to _guide_, 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 the _Times_, 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 Shuttlecock _Times_ in 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 misleading _Times_, the _Daily Telegraph_, and _Morning 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 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_.”