University of Virginia Library

This poem was intended as a censure of the Mammon-worship of the age. In it the false ideal is contrasted with the true. The privations and sufferings of the gold-hunters in or about 1848, as reported in the newspapers, were appalling. I have endeavoured to portray the actual scenery of the country traversed, as well as the description of others enabled me to do so. The reader will remark, in particular, the poetic purpose which the Fata Morgana is made to subserve.

“The Chartists were for the most part working men, who suffered from the distress then generally prevailing, and who looked to further reforms in the system of parliamentary representation for the means of mending their condition. Their name came from their ‘People's Charter,’ the document in which they set forth their demands—universal suffrage; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; the division of the country into equal electoral districts; the abolition of the property qualification of members, and payment of their services. After some rioting in 1839, the Chartists remained tolerably quiet until 1848, when, excited by the revolutions which took place that year in France and other parts of the Continent, they determined to make show of their strength. Mustering on the 10th April on Kennington Common, they designed to march through London to the House of Commons, carrying a petition embodying their demands, which they boasted, though not with truth, to bear more than five million signatures. This was to be presented by Fergus O'Connor, one of the members for Nottingham. Both the Government and the great body of the people met this threatening movement with firmness. The Londoners, to the number of a quarter of a million, enrolled themselves as special constables; the Chartists were not allowed to cross the bridges in procession, and the whole affair passed off quietly, without the troops, which the Duke of Wellington had posted out of sight but at hand, having any need to show themselves. From this time the Chartists ceased to be of any importance as an organised body; but three of the reforms for which they contended have since been carried out by the Acts which abolished the property qualifications, and granted well-nigh universal suffrage and vote by ballot.”—History of England, by Miss Edith Thompson.

“The Chartists were for the most part working men, who suffered from the distress then generally prevailing, and who looked to further reforms in the system of parliamentary representation for the means of mending their condition. Their name came from their ‘People's Charter,’ the document in which they set forth their demands—universal suffrage; vote by ballot; annual parliaments; the division of the country into equal electoral districts; the abolition of the property qualification of members, and payment of their services. After some rioting in 1839, the Chartists remained tolerably quiet until 1848, when, excited by the revolutions which took place that year in France and other parts of the Continent, they determined to make show of their strength. Mustering on the 10th April on Kennington Common, they designed to march through London to the House of Commons, carrying a petition embodying their demands, which they boasted, though not with truth, to bear more than five million signatures. This was to be presented by Fergus O'Connor, one of the members for Nottingham. Both the Government and the great body of the people met this threatening movement with firmness. The Londoners, to the number of a quarter of a million, enrolled themselves as special constables; the Chartists were not allowed to cross the bridges in procession, and the whole affair passed off quietly, without the troops, which the Duke of Wellington had posted out of sight but at hand, having any need to show themselves. From this time the Chartists ceased to be of any importance as an organised body; but three of the reforms for which they contended have since been carried out by the Acts which abolished the property qualifications, and granted well-nigh universal suffrage and vote by ballot.”—History of England, by Miss Edith Thompson.

Written in 1840, this poem expressed my sympathy with the ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-sheltered industrial population of our own country before the repeal of the Corn Laws. It appeared in some newspaper, and was noticed, I think, by the London Spectator. A Conservative friend, ignorant of the authorship, attributed it to an “inspired weaver.” When in 1843 I commenced my ministrations among the poor of an agricultural parish in the West of England, seven or eight shillings a week was the usual remuneration received by a labouring man.

In 1847, at the time of the Irish famine, maize was recommended as a nutritious article of food. If I remember rightly, Mr Carlyle, in a brief letter published in some newspaper, employed his forcible rhetoric in advising its cultivation.

The repeal of the Corn Laws was attributed by Sir Robert Peel to Richard Cobden, the foremost of the Free Trade politicians.

Lord John Russell, to whose courageous and honourable services England is indebted for extended liberties, when in 1849 remedial measures were demanded for Ireland, replied with a cry of regret for helplessness. Sir Robert Peel's statement of a strong and decisive policy, which was afterwards wholly or in part adopted, awakened feelings of admiration, to which I gave expression in this sonnet printed in the Spectator.

“The Hungarians stood up for their ancient constitutions with certain reforms. Afterwards they set up a republic under the famous Kossuth. But unluckily feuds had arisen between the Magyars and other races in Hungary, and this greatly helped the reconquest of the country by Austria, which, however, was not done without the help of Russia.” —Freeman's General Sketch.

“By his intense and burning faith in the destinies of his country, he contributed more perhaps than any other to the realisation of the dream of unity and independence; and though he was willing to sacrifice substantial results for an ideal perfection, his designs were honestly constructive, and he was ever firmly opposed to all projects of spoliation and social disorder.”—Saturday Review, February 13, 1875.

The good tidings of the Agricultural Labour movement reached me while wintering on the Riviera in 1871-72. That movement appeared to me to be characterised by intelligence and moderation. Though cordially sympathising with all measures that have for their object the elevation of the labouring classes, I cannot but deplore that rash and fiery words have sometimes been uttered by their advocates, or forget that the conduct of the men living on the wages of labour, in town or country, is not always prudent or unselfish. Professor Fawcett calls attention to the slight increase which has occurred in the rate of wages in Great Britain contem-poraneously to the large additions recently made to our national wealth; and it is difficult to resist the conviction that, without confiscating the property of the rich, organic reforms might be devised which should have for their result an equitable distribution of the social advantages which the improvements of civilisation accumulate in the nation. Professor Cairnes, though at one with the Socialists on the point of raising the working man from the position of a mere labourer, finds himself wholly unable to accept the means which Socialism proposes for effecting the required elevation, and is of opinion that Co-operation constitutes the one and only solution of our present problem. Mr Fawcett entertains a similar opinion, as did also the late Mr Mill. The contribution towards a common fund to be employed as capital, which is the essence of this system, Professor Cairnes declares must be derived from the savings of the working men themselves, and that they have a margin of increase he considers proved by the Excise returns. As to the British Plutocracy, I agree with Mr Goldwin Smith that it is not deserving of any particular respect. With him, too, I believe that, among the better part of the race, property is being gradually modified by duty; and with him I venture to surmise that before Humanity reaches its distant goal, property and duty will be merged in affection.

“It is with reason that the modern mind sees its golden age in the distant future, as the ancient mind saw it in the forgotten past. But however bright and glorious may be the destination of mankind, its onward progress is marked by irksome toil and bitter sorrow.”—Fiske's Cosmic Theism.