OUR HOME LETTER.

Evening Star, Issue 3774, 30 March 1875, Page 3

OUR HOME LETTER.

London, January 25. To a person who has passed some years in the United States or the British Colonies nothing more incomprehensible than the way in which trade is regarded in this country. It is quite superfluous to remark that it is her commerce alone which enables England to maintain her present position. To that she owes not merely her greatness, but almost her very existence, and, under such circumstances, one might naturally expect that mercantile avocations would be {held jin estimation and considered as fit to be engaged in by the best minds of the country. The very opposite, however, is the case. Amongst our so-called upper classes wholesale trade is regarded as degradation, and retail trade as infamous. No person contaminated with either can be presented at Court, unless indeed he should happen to be a member of Parliament, mayor of a large town, or something of that sort. It is needless to remark the action of such social arrangements in stimulating the growth of snobbery. An amusing instance of this came under my notice only the other day. A gentleman was proposed as member of one of the London clubs and duly elected. The friend who proposed him gave his designation as " landed proprietor, for it seems that he owned some considetable estates in Scotland. Judge, therefore, the consternation and horror of the members of the club on ascertaining that the recruit was also interested in a large Birmingham gnu factory I Their genteel feelings were cruelly lacerated. To think of the contamination they would be subjected to in associating with a person engaged in trade! Of course so out- ’• rageoua an insult was not to be put up with, so a meeting of the committee was held, and a resolution passed calling upon the obnoxious intrader to resign. This, however, at the request of his proposer, he declined doing. A meeting of all the members of the club had to be called, when the wretched manufacturer was ignominiously expelled. At first sight we might be inclined to suspect both sides of a little snobbery, for what could any sensible, selfrespecting man want with the society of people so vulgar and conceited ? But it is only fair to remark that, on receiving his sentence of expulsion, the manufacturer stated that he had only consented reluctantly to have his name proposed, that he had never made any use of the • institution, and that on hearing his membership had been objected to he had desired immediately to resign, and had only deferred doing so at the express wish of his proposer. What a picture is here exhibited of the meanness characterising what is facetiously called “good society.’' Though the presence of a gentleman engaged in a useful or honorable pursuit was regarded as contamination, no one would have dreamt of opposing the entrance of a new member on the ground of his being a gambler; and though it is held as ignoble to be descended from honest, industrious men and virtuous women, the ducal descendant of one of Charles the Second’s mistresses is considered to be a personage of distinguished birth. As regards retail trade, the practice of it as an avocation is a thing to be confessed with shame -and confusion of face. Insults on persons following it are bestowed with so lavish a hand, that whenever a person succeeds in it to any great extent he almost invariably selects some other pursuit for his children. A curious mollification of this has, however, recently been developed by the establishment of co-operative stores. I need hardly say how immensely superior the clerks in Government offices consider themselves to retail tradesmen; in fact, the comparison of their social positions is almost as difficult as it would be to compare an archangel with one of the lower vertebrates. Considering the degradation involved in selling goods retail, it might certainly be asked whether those persons can jbe considered blameless who encourage the practice of buying goods retail. However, let that pass. It is pretty well known that with the majority of the Civil Service and a large number of army officers m ?oey an important consideration; so with the view of making their salaries go as far as possible, they have instituted co-operative stores, which, by doing business on a large scale and exclusively for cash, are enabled to supply groceries, wines, and other goods at very low prices. These stores are, in fact, nothing more or less than retail shops, carried on by joint stock companies, whose shareholders are principally clerks in Government offices, and their directors consist of the aforesaid •lerks, who look after the management in their hours of leisure. Of course this arrangement is as objectionable as any that can be conceived. These gentlemen choose to be their own grocers, wine merchants, drapers, and ironmongers, which th ey have as much right to do as to be their own landlords ; but, in regard to social position, it is very edifying to note how vast is tbe gulf separating the ordinary shopkeeper from the director of a co-operative store. To attempt to ignore it would be as absurd as if the manager of a meat-preserving company were to affect social equality with the proprietors of ■cabby sheep. Now, I happen to be rather intimately acquainted with a gentleman holding rather an Important Government appointment, who is also a director of one of the co-operative stores He is an exceedingly pleasant, amiable fellow in his way, but perhaps the most interesting phase of his character is a pleasing consciousness of the exalted rank derived from his official posi tion. It happens, also, that this gentleman has a brother, who, like myself, has spent many years abroad, having,been in California and tbe eastern States of America, and when the brothers meet nothing is more entertainingthan to remark the sly rubs administered by the traveller. The Government official takes a deep interest in the co-operative store, is fond of talking about it, and evidently considers it the thing—something intensely respectable, a kind of semi-national institution, and capable of con ferring distinction on all connected with it. Under the influence ef such ideas, he speaks somewhat exultingly of his own position in regard to it, and refers to the details of its management with a sense of satisfaction and This generally brings out the other brother, who, with a voice in which anxious concern if blended with a desire for informa tion, will ask whether the co-operative store is not very much like—well, say something analogous to a retail shop?” It i 8 worth a trifle •^ e s p l e - 8 l nt i? n im< ? h occasions, for the disgust flijMich the calumnious insinuation is repelled is a treat not often met with * There has been another “crisis”'in France which it will need a wiser man than your cor respondent to explain.. When Artemus Ward was asked an elaborate and incomprehensible question he said, “ Is it a conundrum ? I give

it up. Tell me the answer I** So with this crisis. To me it is a conundrum; but I see very plainly that the French have got fer President a selfish, incompetent, obstinate old mummy. Another transformation scene has been enacted on the Spanish stage, the actors remaining virtually the same. General Campos, who was commanding in Valencia, suddenly thought fit to become dissatisfied with the existing state of things and to proclaim Alfonso, the son of Isabella, as King. Other generals followed suit, and Serrano, either being in league with thsm, or finding It best to swim with the stream, joined in the movement. Perhaps he thought it was easier and pleasanter to set up one king than to pull down another. Alfonso has made a triumphal entry to Madrid, with flags, processions, addresses, music, ana all that sort of thing. Meanwhile, Don Carlos, ‘ the pretender,” occupies the north-west comer of the peninsula, and fulminates proclamations against “ the usurper.” The case somewhat reminds one of Mr Winkle’s fall on the ice, whereupon Bob Sawyer and Ben Allen incontinently wished to ** bleed him.” Spain represents the unfortunate victim, the rival Princes acting as “sawbones”; and between the two she is made to bleed. The Pope has sent Alfonso his compliments, or apostolical benediction, but it seems the old man has not quite made up his mind which party to back. We are told that “ his Holiness does not intend to use his influence to prevent the continuance of civil war in Spain, but will pray that both parties may be spiritually enlightened.” That, of course, is highly satisfactory, and will be very efficacious in stopping the anarchy and bloodshed. As to Adfonso, no one need envy him. A lad of seventeen suddenly called to the most rickety throne in Europe! Given the choice between that and a well-established business in trotters and cow-heel, who would not prefer the latter?

Talking of the Pope, I must not omit to mention that another “ affliction ” has been prepared for his Holiness, This is nothing less than the establishment of a Masonic Temple in Rome, which is to be inaugurated next week with gorgeous ceremonial. Of course such an enormity was never permitted in the days of the temporal power. But the Church never persecuted; no, no 1 That is a wicked fabrication of Protestants {

The question of army organisation and army reform has been brought to the front by a speech of the Duke of Cambridges, in which he affirms that we must choose “between a cheap army and one that is comparatively expensive.” “If we grant a cheap army,” says his Grace, “we must have recourse to a conscription ; if we decline that alternative, we must not mind putting our band in our pocket.” This dictum is not a very agreeable one, and John Bull shows an obstinate inability to “see ft.” As to a conscription, the idea may be dismissed. The English people are not going to stand that; and, as regards increased taxation, f® possessed with an ineradicable conviction that he pays enough <*s it is, and, if he does not get efficient service, he would like to know the reason why. In considering this question of national defence, too, we ought never to forget that the funds originally devoted to the purpose have been impudently embezzled; and, where the safety of the country is concerned, it surely may not be improper to think whether the national plunderers may not be made to disgorge, Your readers are of course aware that the cost of defence was originally charged upon the land, the revenues arising from which were, in fact, a species of national property. How a gang of swindlers, calling themselves lords and dukes, gradually succeeded in converting this public property to their private use, there is not space here to enter on ; but it is worth while, perhaps, to expose the transparent knavery by which the public is still robbed. The tax on land is professedly four shillings in the pound, but the land-owners, being for many years the only class possessing political power, were able to insist on this tax being levied according to the valuation of nearly two centuries ago. The result is that in many cases the tax, nominally of four shillings, really amounts to a few pence or halfpence only. So late as the reign of Queen Ann# the land tax formed one-third of the_ entire revenue, whilst now it amounts to an insignificant fraction. Were one third of our present revenue derived from that source it would amount to more than twenty millions a } ear, and if a greater expenditure is really required for the efficiency of our defensive arrangements it may reasonably ba considered whether this resource can not be made available.

Dr John Henry Newman has published a reply to Mr Gladstone’s expostulation, for which. the Ultramontanes will hftrdly give him much thanks. When the essence of it is extracted, it amounts simply to a laborious effort to prove that Homan Catholics do reserve some shred or comer in their conscience to themselves. So far, doubtless. Dr Newman is doing them but justice, but whatever he claims for them he inevitably denies to the Church, who would have complete authority; so this is- not altogether agreeable. Some parts of his argume M t ’ h^! ever ’ can hardl y be read without a smile. Thus, to show the consequences of defying the Pope, he says—

What does the Pope mean,” said Napoleon, in July, 1807, by the threat of excommunication to me ? Does he think the world has gone back a thousand years? Does ho suppose the arms wdl fall from the hands of my soldiers?” Within two years after these remarkable words were written the Pope did excommunicate him, in.return for the confiscation of his whole dominions, and, in less than four years more, the arms did fall from the hands of his soldiers, and the hosts, apparently invincible, which he had collected, were dispersed and ruined by the blasts of winter. “ The weapons of the soldiers, says Segur, in describing the Russian retreat, ‘ appeared of an insupportable weight to their stiffened arms. During their frequent falls they fell from their hands, and, destitute of the power of raising them from the ground, they were left in the snow. They did not throw them away; famine and cold tore them from their grasp.” “ The soldiers could no longer hold their weapons,” says Salgnes; “they fell from the hands even of the bravest and most robust. The muskets dropped from the frozen arms of those who bore them.”

Now, Dr Newman is probably unconscious of by implication, he clearly charges the then Pope with the crime of witchcraft, if there be such a crime. He plainly endeavors to connect the Pope’s curse with the miseries which befel the French soldiers. It is desired that we should believe that these unutterable woes were inflicted in execution of the papal anathema. Could we accept such a belief, it would follow that the Pope must have been one of the greatest criminals of history. Granting, as we say, that the conduct of Buonaparte towards him had been outrageous, would that justify unbounded vengeance inflicted on the innocent ? What had those miserable relics of humanity who perished amid the snows of Russia what had those poor wretches, dragged from their friends and homes to fight in a c&use wherein they had no interest—what had they done that the Pope should blast them ? Yet Dr Newman would seem to imply that it was so, and if we accept the supposition, to what an awful conclusion does it drive us! Have we then a Vicegerent of Heaven, wielding its delegated thunders, and yet using them after such clumsy fashion that it can only strike the guilty one through the immeasurable sufferings of thousands who are innocent ? Do not misunderstand me ; do not think I affirm or even suggest anything of the sort. I merely point out the inference that must necessarily follow were we to accept the hypothesis Dr Newman seems to wish.

Another part of Dr Newman’s protest, well worthy of attention, is that wherein he strives to provethe sovereign and absolute power wielded by the Pontiff in the early Church. Under its benign influence, ho says the Emperors showed their belief in its divinity and of its creeds, by acts of vhat we should now call persecution.” Happy word ! Call? Yes: I think we should call them persecution. Here is a specimen Dr Newman gives of the pro .ceedings of the Church, in those happy days of piety and purity, when its power,was supreme: Jews were forbidden to proselytise a Christian; Christians were forbidden to become Pagans ; Pagan rites were abolished ; the books of heretics and infidels were burned wholesale; their chapels were rased to the ground, and even their private meetings were made illegal.” Dr Newman might have gone a step farther, and have reminded us that somej thing else besides the books of heretics and

infidels were “burned wholesale,” but probably he thought he had moved enough. I certainly think bo myself. The Homan Church is professedly infallible, not only in matters of faith, but also in those of morality, but how the latter claim can be substantiated, unless we admit that it is right to praitise what we should now call persecution, I confess myself unable to comprehend.