Australian views of England/Letter 6
LETTER VI.
THE REPUTATION OF THE COLONY IN ENGLAND—AUSTRALIAN INTERESTS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—BRITISH CONNEXION—THE LONDON POOR.
NOTWITHSTANDING all that has been said against our dear old colony, the accounts from Sydney place her, in the estimation of observant men here, first of the Australian group in the elements of solid prosperity. If political mistakes have been made, they know that worse mistakes have been made nearer home, and in the midst of it all they see that the colony is making real progress. The two millions which it appears Mr. Cowper wants to borrow will be readily obtained, and the alarm about Australian democracy is beginning to lose its potency to English ears. Englishmen at home believe in the English stock abroad, and there must be some worse fruits than any yet from the working of manhood suffrage to shake this belief. Among the public men of England the desire is to let the colonies govern themselves more—not less.
The English papers, so far as they reflect the opinions of conspicuous men in Parliament and directing minds in literature (and the English masses never think about the matter at all), will have informed you that events are tending towards the withdrawal of all Imperial military aid from the Australian colonies. Two set debates on the subject have occupied the Commons (that is, a miserably thin minority of the House) during the past month, besides the incidental sallies of honorable members in the same direction. The originators of these debates were, in the first instance, Mr. Arthur Mills, the member for Taunton, who, before he entered Parliament, had paid a good deal of attention to colonial matters, and had published a book on Colonial Constitutions; and in the second instance, Mr. W. E. Baxter, the successor of Joseph Hume in the representation of Montrose. I am not sure that there is not more of English popularity-seeking than of anything else in these efforts on the part of certain politicians, and I am inclined to this opinion from the incompleteness and vagueness of the views expressed even by such men as Mr. Adderley. They want to withdraw the military, but they are wonderfully tender on the point of being suspected of a wish to weaken the ties of British connexion; and, when embarrassed by the logical sequence of their own arguments, they at once except all the ground on which the colonists base their claim to military protection. If the colonists are involved in the quarrels of England, forsooth, they would rush to the defence of the colonies 1 The truth is, I suspect that these gentlemen, in the dearth of popular topics, have discovered that it tickles the English voter's idea of his pocket to be told how he ought not to be taxed for the defence of the saucy and well-conditioned colonists. There is another class of politicians, however, who are much more in earnest, and possess much more ability, and exercise a much wider range of influence. They would withdraw the military, as they would remove the last hold of British power from the colonies, under the firm belief that the present connexion is only mischievous in its effects, and that it would be juster to the people of the British isles, and far more conducive to the general progress of the colonies, to have a complete separation. There are leading men in both Houses of Parliament, and certainly on both sides of the Commons, who are ready to go the whole length, and Professor Goldwin Smith, who on account of his popularity can afford to say what he thinks, is only a little bolder than other men with names and followings at the Universities, while the Times, ever splendid in its inconsistencies, has startled the elderly gentlemen in nightcaps, by putting . forth as a reason for the withdrawal of the military, that in the event of any of the colonies claiming their independence, England ought not to risk the shedding of blood by having troops on the spot, whose duty it would be to fight!
I was sitting under the gallery when Mr, Mills' motion came on in the House of Commons. The benches on both sides were well filled, and the mover, who is a gentlemanly young man, with clear powers of statement and an evident knowledge of his audience, was endured to the end of his speech without any sensible decrease of members, and whenever he said a pointed thing about the injustice of taxing their constituents for the benefit of the self-governing colonies, honorable gentlemen lustily cheered him. After the first dose, a good deal of uneasiness was manifested; one by one, and two by two, the seats began to thin, and in the next quarter of an hour a hundred members had escaped.
The resolution of Mr. Mills affirmed that those colonies exercising the right of self-government ought to take upon themselves the main responsibility of providing for their own internal good order and security. After a speech from the seconder, Mr. Buxton, in support, an addition to the motion was moved by Mr. Baxter "That such colonies ought to assist in their own external defence." Mr. Fortescue, the Under Secretary for the Colonies, assented on behalf of the Government to both the resolution and the amendment, and made a speech expressive of his concurrence in much that had been advanced, but doubting whether a general principle could be applied in all cases, especially in those colonies where the population was of mixed character, such, for example, as Trinidad. Sir James Ferguson, who had been a member of Mr. Mills' committee of last session on Colonial Defences, took the doubting side of the argument more decisively; he thought it might be safely inferred that Mr. Baxter contemplated by his amendment a much wider question than was opened by Mr. Mills. But the House was getting noisily Impatient, and evidently wished the Colonial economists at the antipodes. Mr. Adderley, however, with his bundle of papers beside him, was sitting in a fidgetty enough condition on the front Opposition bench, which he had all to himself; even the never-inattentive Disraeli had gone to get his chop and half-pint of port; and the Conservative plalanx at the rear consisted of Sam Slick and two other heavy-looking old gentlemen. At length Ferguson sat down, and Hallburton jumped up! Of course I was all ears to learn what the author of "Sam Slick," with his Nova Scotian instincts, had to say on the subject; and he said just nothing to the purpose, and that nothing in as uninteresting a way as any other old gentleman with a portly figure and well-used countenance could well adopt As I had nothing better to do, and as the task was an easy one, I "counted the House" while Mr. Hallburton was speaking, and the number of members present was twenty-seven! Two or three junior members of the Government kept possession of the Treasury benches, and some four or five forlorn figures sat at easy distances on the back ministerial seats, conspicuous amongst whom was the stout form of Mr. Childers. Here and there in other parts of the House, sat solitary members, as if doing penance for their political sins. But all the notabilities, including the veteran Premier, had vanished. Mr. Gladstone had sat out part of the debate; so had Mr, Disraeli. Mr. Bright had shewed himself at the door once or twice, but had speedily disappeared again. The sight, of the empty benches seemed to freeze Mr. Adderley's tongue to the roof of his mouth. He had not power to touch his notes when the Speaker rose to put the question from the chair; and it was put as amended by Mr. Baxter in a house of three-fourths of a quorum, and passed in the affirmative. Five minutes after, Mr. Locke King moved the second reading of his Register of Voters' Bill, and the House thereupon was counted out. The process of "counting out" is very different from that of the New South Wales Assembly, and certainly much more sensible. When Mr. Locke King moved, a member on the opposite benches forewarned him that if he persisted in so thin a House, he would count him out. Mr. King offered terms which did not meet the views of the objector, who explained that he did not wish to take advantage of the state of the House, if the second reading was postponed to a certain day. This not being assented to, he then moved that the House be counted. All this time the Speaker sat perfectly silent, listening to the two members trying to make terms, and he did not count till he was moved thereto. This is so very different to the Colonial practice, and is so much more in favour of the good order of public business, that perhaps your Parliamentarians may think it worth while to refer to the reports of what occurred, which will be found in the London papers of March 5, though those reports do not explain the occurrence in detail.
Mr. Baxter, on the 2ist instant, submitted the following resolution:—
"That the multiplication of fortified places in distant possessions involves a useless expenditure, and that the cost of maintaining fortifications at places not being great naval stations, in self-governed colonies, is not a proper cha^e on the Imperial Treasury."
The debate was valuable only in giving occasion for a very sensible speech from Sir George Cornewall Lewis on the whole subject, which left the Member for Montrose with no alternative but to withdraw his motion.
Out of Parliament there is little domestic matter of interest, and Parliament itself is unusually dull. The most spirited debate took place a few days back, when the general subject of international maritime law was brought forward by Mr. Horsfall. The House of Commons is just now in the thick of a thorough discussion of the Revised Code of Education.
The Exhibition building is completed, and the interior arrangements are being rapidly carried out The Vimiera, with the New South Wales contributions, arrived in the Thames yesterday.
The subject of the condition of the London poor has just been brought before the public by an unexampled act of munificence on the part of a citizen of the much-abused United States. No one who has not walked with his eyes and his heart open through the obscure and narrow passages of life in this huge human hive can form any adequate idea of the multifarious forms of wretchedness which are to be seen day and night, summer and winter, amidst the opulence and refinement, the glitter and joyousness of London. There are throngs of little children who have been trained into professional wickedness. An "Australian" writes in the Times:—
"To the Editor of the Times.
"Sir,
"On this bitter cold and wet morning, as I was coming to the City, ray attention was attracted to a little girl, seven or eight years of age, crying bitterly. She was as fair and beautiful a child as could well be seen. Her garments were miserably thin, and her poor little feet had scarce any covering, as she dragged herself along on the cold pavement. Before I accosted her I watched her for a minute or two. She did not ask anyone for alms. The crowd passed on, no one took notice of her, and the policeman of the beat, with stem look and erect step, was unconscious of her existence. I then asked her what she was crying for, and whether she had no friends to look after her. The poor little tiling could only say, 'I'm so cold,' ' and that she had no parents alive. Of course I gave the child a trifle, and begged the policeman to see what could be done for her; but he could do nothing, and pointed in other directions where more children were crouching in passages to get out of the cold blast.
"I do not address these few lines to you acting under any feelings of sickly sentimentality. I have been away from England many years, and, probably, this first instance which has come under my notice of the suffering to which many children of the poorer classes are subjected has struck me with a greater degree of acute sympathy than those feel who, day by day and year by year, witness similar scenes. Suffering and poverty there always will be; but it is nevertheless very shocking that in this rich city there appears to be no philanthropic machinery in existence which would extend a helping hand to such a little innocent; which would save from perishing from cold and misery this lovely specimen of God's creation. Tens of thousands of pounds are spent yearly by this country in sending missions to the heathen: cannot a little money be spared to pick up in the streets and care for these little girls; and if the; cannot be provided for in this overpopulated country, send them in due time, under proper care, to those countries, like Australia, where they would in time become prosperous and happy mothers of families?
"If I remain long in England, I may perhaps become as callous to such sights as the callous crowd whom I saw passing by this poor infant without a word or look of commiseration. I am myself a father, and I am not ashamed to say I was unmanned by the sight It is the happy privilege of your great journal that its columns are read by untold thousands. I beseech you, therefore, to give insertion to these few lines. No one can tell but some parents' hearts in influential and wealthy circles may have their attention drawn to this subject by their perusal, and that some good may result from it.
"I remain. Sir,
"Your obedient Servant,
March 21.
Every man in London might find occasion every day and every hour of the day, to write like this "Australian," if he gave way to the impulses of his better nature. The next day's Times brings an answer from one who knows the lower depths of London better than he, and whose charity is not colder nor narrower.
"To the Editor of the Times.
"Sir,
"Your correspondent 'Australian,' on his way to the City yesterday, sees a pretty little girl, miserably dad and shoeless, crying in the street, and no man regarding her. The day is bitter, and he is touched. He asks her why she cries, and whether she has no friends. She replies that she is 'so cold,' and that she has no parents alive. He then gives her 'a trifle,' and, after commending her to the humane consideration of a policeman, proceeds on his way, moralising and wondering 'why, in this rich city, there appears to be no philanthropic machinery in existence which would extend a helping band to such a little innocent.'
"Now, sir, as 'Australian' represents a large class of the benevolent public, will you permit me to point out to him that the 'philanthropic machinery' in this case should have been found in his own person?
"Why, if so much interested in this poor child, did he not write her name and address, or the place she slept in the previous night, in his pocket-book? It would not have taken so long as writing his letter to the Times did, and he would have had the opportunity, either in person or by proxy, of helping, possibly rescuing from a future life of fraud and crime, this one innocent, and perhaps others.
"But no; he did precisely the thing he ought not to have done. He gave her 'a trifle.' Did he see what she did with it? His uncommunicative policeman probably did, and smiled grimly as he watched her run round the comer into the adjacent gin-shop, and give it into the hand of the blear-eyed hag who had hired her for the day, and who, with a greater or less blasphemy in proportion to the amount of the contribution, drives her back into the cold to distil more tears of 'unmanned fathers' into gin.
"For 'Australian,' as a stranger, there is every excuse; but, in truth, this most common, mischievous, and selfish mode of administering alms is adopted by a great proportion of the public who ought to know better. The vast commerce, the restless activity of this human ant's-nest, renders us, not 'callous,' but disposed to condense our charity into the shilling given in the street, or the check sent to the 'Society.'
"The sight alluded to by your correspondent 'unmans' 'Pater-familias' more than other people. But though 'the father' softens, the merchant, the stockbroker 'is fixed,* and must not lose his appointment in the City; and so the half-crown hurriedly bestowed, though imparting a genial glow Co the giver, often carries a curse to the receiver, aiding and confirming a course of deceit and crime, helping the pretty face of the child to trade upon the better sympathies of humanity till it is eligible to minister to its grosser vices.
"I remain. Sir,
"Your obedient Servant,
March 22.
So it is. These two simple letters exhibit the cruel thing of London juvenile vagrancy as it exists, the prolific cause of the thing, and its only effectual remedy. God be praised for ragged schools, and for an active benevolence in high places like Lord Shaftesbury's! Let no one think that the pictures they sometimes see of systematised juvenile mendicancy are overdrawn. One Sunday afternoon I was walking with Thomas Carlyle from Chelsea to Grosvenor-square, when, as one nearly always is, I was accosted by a begging child. I gave the child a sixpence, which called forth a rebuke from the stern philosopher at my side. "The other day I was asked for alms in one of these squares by a poor little weeping girl," said he; "I had a profound conviction that no gift from me could benefit her, but I nevertheless gave her some loose pence. After walking a short distance, I turned to see what she did with herself, when I saw another bigger girl taking the pence from her, and beating her to make her cry for more. It is of no use—it is worse: it is supporting their tyrants to give to these children."
But there is another kind of poor in London, the honest and striving, who, do what they will, through a hundred different causes, cannot earn sufficient bread. These, the deserving children of want and sorrow, have found a noble benefactor in George Peabody. This great-hearted American merchant is a native of Massachusets. After a long career of commercial success, the last twenty-five years in London, he has amassed a large fortune. Years ago his benevolent spirit found a worthy sphere of exercise in founding two public institutions with free libraries attached to them, for the improvement of the poorer classes in American cities where in early life he had resided. Within the last few days Mr. Peabody has made over in trust, for the benefit of the honest poor of London, the splendid donation of £150,000 sterling. Think of that, ye rich Australians, whose hearts expand towards the poor!
London, March 26, 1862.