Alton Locke, Tailor And Poet | Page 8

him of unsettling
the minds of the poor, making them discontented, &c. Some of the
foremost Chartists wrote virulently against him for "attempting to
justify the God of the Old Testament," who, they maintained, was

unjust and cruel, and, at any rate, not the God "of the people." The
political economists fell on him for his anti-Malthusian belief, that the
undeveloped fertility of the earth need not be overtaken by population
within any time which it concerned us to think about. The quarterlies
joined in the attack on his economic heresies. The "Daily News"
opened a cross fire on him from the common-sense Liberal battery,
denouncing the "revolutionary nonsense, which is termed Christian
Socialisms"; and, after some balancing, the "Guardian," representing in
the press the side of the Church to which he leant, turned upon him in a
very cruel article on the republication of "Yeast" (originally written for
"Fraser's Magazine"), and accused him of teaching heresy in doctrine,
and in morals "that a certain amount of youthful profligacy does no real
permanent harm to the character, perhaps strengthens it for a useful and
religious life."
In this one instance Parson Lot fairly lost his temper, and answered, "as
was answered to the Jesuit of old--mentiris impudentissime." With the
rest he seemed to enjoy the conflict and "kept the ring," like a candidate
for the wrestling championship in his own county of Devon against all
comers, one down another come on.
The fact is, that Charles Kingsley was born a fighting man, and
believed in bold attack. "No human power ever beat back a resolute
forlorn hope," he used to say; "to be got rid of, they must be blown
back with grape and canister," because the attacking party have all the
universe behind them, the defence only that small part which is shut up
in their walls. And he felt most strongly at this time that hard fighting
was needed. "It is a pity" he writes to Mr. Ludlow, "that telling people
what's right, won't make them do it; but not a new fact, though that ass
the world has quite forgotten it; and assures you that dear sweet
'incompris' mankind only wants to be told the way to the millennium to
walk willingly into it--which is a lie. If you want to get mankind, if not
to heaven, at least out of hell, kick them out." And again, a little later
on, in urging the policy which the "Christian Socialist" should still
follow--
1851.--"It seems to me that in such a time as this the only way to fight

against the devil is to attack him. He has got it too much his own way
to meddle with us if we don't meddle with him. But the very devil has
feelings, and if you prick him will roar...whereby you, at all events,
gain the not-every-day-of-the-week-to-be-attained benefit of finding
out where he is. Unless, indeed, as I suspect, the old rascal plays
ventriloquist (as big grasshoppers do when you chase them), and puts
you on a wrong scent, by crying 'Fire!' out of saints' windows. Still, the
odds are if you prick lustily enough, you make him roar unawares."
The memorials of his many controversies lie about in the periodicals of
that time, and any one who cares to hunt them up will be well repaid,
and struck with the vigour of the defence, and still more with the
complete change in public opinion, which has brought the England of
to-day clean round to the side of Parson Lot. The most complete
perhaps of his fugitive pieces of this kind is the pamphlet, "Who are the
friends of Order?" published by J. W. Parker and Son, in answer to a
very fair and moderate article in "Fraser's Mazagine." The Parson there
points out how he and his friends were "cursed by demagogues as
aristocrats, and by tories as democrats, when in reality they were
neither." And urges that the very fact of the Continent being overrun
with Communist fanatics is the best argument for preaching association
here.
But though he faced his adversaries bravely, it must not be inferred that
he did not feel the attacks and misrepresentations very keenly. In many
respects, though housed in a strong and vigorous body, his spirit was an
exceedingly tender and sensitive one. I have often thought that at this
time his very sensitiveness drove him to say things more broadly and
incisively, because he was speaking as it were somewhat against the
grain, and knew that the line he was taking would be misunderstood,
and would displease and alarm those with whom he had most sympathy.
For he was by nature and education an aristocrat in the best sense of the
word, believed that a landed aristocracy was a blessing to the country,