Of course the miners’ is a quite different question, and far more difficult. In fact, too difficult, unless one is a coal expert. The agreement of 1921, by which they got these wages, automatically ended on May 1st 1926, and trouble was bound to come. Last year the Government spent 23 million pounds, which the country can’t afford, on subsidising the coal industry, and obviously that can’t go on indefinitely, though I think it should for a time. The fact is that it is not at present, under present conditions and with present wages and hours, a paying industry, and mine after mine will have to be closed down unless the men can produce more somehow. Also if the present wages continue, there will be more unemployment, as so many can’t be employed. Of course the reductions don’t affect the lower-grade men; no-one under £2:5 a week is reduced at all, and these not much. The cuts only seriously affect the £3:18 to £4:15 men—i.e. those who do the actual deep pit work, and some of the high-grade men on the surface. These could lose about 10/- a week, which is hard on them, but they would probably re-win it when coal paid better. A Welsh girl I know whose family are all miners says her father and 3 brothers each earn about £4, & share a house, so get £16 a week; but this is exceptional luck, of course. Of course the whole wages question seems to me so difficult, because I don’t see how anyone can raise a family on under £3 a week, and yet they do. I mean, I would raise all wages, if industry would allow, not especially to miners, who are better paid already than most, in the high grades. When this agreement was made, in 1921, cost of living was 268%. Now it is reported to be 168% (above pre-war cost, this is, of course). So, a man who was now reduced from £4 to £3: 10, would actually in buying power be better off than in 1921—he would lose ⅛ of what he earns, but has gained more than that in purchasing power. But still, no-one wants to lose any money, and one can’t help feeling they have a good case and are wise to fight it. The only possible end is more Government subsidy, I think. I believe it’s true that the coal-owners are going bankrupt and can’t pay more.
Of course we hate governments, because they make us do what we don’t like, it’s what they’re for. They’re all silly, too. I hated the British Gazette, horrid little paper. I prefer a Liberal government on the whole. But no gov. can solve the coal question well…
[The end of this letter is missing]
St Andrew’s Mansions, Dorset St, W.1
Whit Sunday [23 May], 1926
Dearest Jeanie,
... I disposed of my admirer by, when she insisted on lunching with me, arranging with some other friends of mine to turn up and lunch with us, so that there could be no private conversation and so that it must have been obvious to her I didn’t mean to be alone with her. She has taken the hint, and subsided into silence—I am so glad, because I began to fear her skin was too thick for any hint, and that I should have to be unkind straight out, which I never like. If one can settle an affair politely, so much the better.
The coal strike is dreadful. It seems we are losing thousands of pounds a minute by it, at a time when the country can’t afford, if it’s to pay its debts and keep up, to lose anything at all. It seems at present a hopeless impasse—first the miners reject the terms, then the owners do—so, as Mr Bennet said of Elizabeth and Mr Collins, it seems a hopeless business. Meanwhile the Government, like Mrs Bennet, is all of an uproar trying to bring them together.
By the way, I asked a man I know13 who works for the T.U.C. how anyone came to be getting only 30 or 35 shillings, and he said it must be in one of those pits where all the men don’t work the full week, but are only allowed to work some days and [are] paid accordingly, which is very hard on them. The minimum for the full week is more than that, of course.
There seems to be a wide-spread fear, according to this man, (who is standing Labour for Leicester and was up there a good deal during the strike) of a general lowering of wages if the miners’ are lowered. It is quite unreasonable, of course, as the coal question is all by itself, and the lowering only follows an artificial raising, but it has got about. I wish it were possible to have a national minimum in each industry, that couldn’t be lowered. Or else profit-sharing. Only this wouldn’t help coal, which is yielding no profits at present except to the coal-shop-men who are getting much more than they should compared with what the workers and owners get.
I hear that miners’ wives in some places threaten a rebellion, on account of wash-houses being put up at the pits, which enable their husbands to clean themselves and doll up and go into the town without coming home first. They threaten to pull them down. This seems reasonable, tho’ one sees the poor miner’s point of view too. What a complicated world it is! Perhaps the Bishops are right when they say that mutual charity is the only solution, though it always sounds silly in face of a question which is as difficult as coal and seems to need mainly brains to solve it….
Very much love.
R.M.
10, St Andrew’s Mansions,14 Dorset St, W.1
28 January, [1927]
Dearest Jeanie,
... I think a bicycling tour is a v.g. idea. But I don’t see how it’s going to take you a week to get from Deal to Petersfield unless you spend most of each day at the places you pass. I should have thought 2 or 3 ordinary days’ bicycling, not at all fast or much, would do it. If I were doing it, I should avoid the coast road, which is very crowded and ugly, and also the seaside inns are full, and bicycle inland, through Kent and Sussex, through quiet lanes & country villages—much prettier and more country and quieter and also the inns wouldn’t be so full. I dislike watering-places always; however, perhaps you want to keep by the sea. As to sleeping out, I’d rather sleep on a hay-stack than on a crowded beach. However, that is all a question of taste, and anyhow a bicycling expedition is fun, however one does it, if only the weather is good and the winds favourable, which is most important; in fact, if a wind is against me I don’t bicycle at all….
Did you listen last night to the debate between Lady Rhondda and G. K. Chesterton, on Leisured Women?15 I was there, and it was quite amusing, without saying much sense on either side. Shaw, in the chair, was the best. But I agree with Lady Rhondda; Chesterton’s glorification of an exclusive home life seems to me quite a wrong and silly idea, and, as Lady R. said, probably very bad for the children on whom excessive attention is concentrated. Chesterton said that the home is now the only place where a man can call his soul his own and say and think what he likes. Shaw said he mustn’t speak of ‘the home’, he must say what home, and that in most cases people’s homes were the last places where they could say what they thought—e.g. Socrates. Chesterton said he had meant the Chestertons’ home. I’m sure he is right about that, as he has in it only the admiring Mrs C. and a meek secretary. But I imagine Shaw is right about most homes…
Very much love.
E.R.M.
10, St Andrew’s Mansions, Dorset St, W.1
16 February, [1927]
Dearest Jeanie,
… Shall you try and guess the objects shown to the telepathic subjects to-night?16 I shall if I get back from the theatre in time. The Society for Psychical Research is unfair, as usual, in saying that if no one guesses any of them it will prove nothing adverse to telepathy, but that if anyone does it will prove that telepathy exists. Anyhow, with thousands of guessers, some of the objects are almost bound to be hit on. I expect the Daily News is right in saying that we shall each think of what we like ourselves—the child of doughnuts, Mussolini of portraits of himself, etc. I am broadcasting on Saturday night, two essays, ‘On questions and answers’, and ‘Travelling by Train’, from A Casual Commentary. I see in some paper that ‘Miss R.M. will intersperse her reading with some pungent remarks that occur to her at the moment’, but this is not so. I don’t know what pungent remarks are, but I certainly shouldn’t be allowed to make any on the spur of the moment…
Much love.
E.R.M.
10, St Andrew’s Mansions, Dorset St, W.1
Thursday [14 April, 1927]
Dea
rest Jeanie,
... I quite agree that the mind is the important part of the human affair—the only question is, which causes which. However, as you say, we shall never know. Your argument is weak about importance. Love (between man & woman) is the important part of their desire for each other, but the originator of it, which called love into being in man, is mere animal desire. I mean, the important factor often comes chronologically second. Similarly (as Socrates used to put it) the important part of an electric lamp is the light it gives, but the light is a function of the physical structure, and operates strictly within it, and would perish if the lamp were smashed. However, I am myself uncertain about body and soul!
… Your loving E.R.M.
[This letter was probably written in September, 1927.
The first part of it is missing.]
… Kenneth Mozley17 turned up yesterday and took me to the Falkland naval battles film18—a very good film indeed, but too sad and full of ships going down, which I hate. A bright spot, however, was the way the German Commander uttered the same noble sentiments as the English, about sinking rather than surrendering, and went down with flag flying, and the audience cheered them as loudly as they cheered the English for doing and saying the same, which showed a very good spirit. Afterwards Kenneth and I had tea, and he told me how he was the only true Augustinian in the church, much to the interest of the neighbouring tea tables. ‘I have no use at all, my dear Rose’, he said, getting very loud and shrill, ‘for your weak, striving, well-meaning God, who has to rely on our encouragement of him for his success’. Everyone looked at me with scorn, for having a God like that. I like to see a man so animated about religion.
Very much love…
Your loving E.R.M.
24 October, [1927]
Dearest Jeanie,
... I thought the Archbishop’s letter to Barnes very good didn’t you.19 I’m afraid he won’t be tried for heresy. Though it would be a good entertainment, it would be very unedifying, and I fear we should become laughing-stocks, like Tennessee.20 Besides, his remarks about the Sacrament, though not very intelligent or at all polite, weren’t heretical. The old Canon who thought they were is obviously dotty.21 I’m glad all the bishops are snubbing him. But he wrote a very conceited reply to London,22 saying how many congratulations he had received. I think he should be tried, for brawling; only that he’d enjoy it so. He obviously thinks he has lit a candle that will never be put out. I’m glad they’ve all made it clear that evolution has nothing to do with the quarrel, the press was so silly about it. Even now it is making a heading of ‘Gorilla Sermons’,23 though the Archbishop said they had nothing to do with the case.
Very much love.
E.R.M.
29 October, [1927]
Dearest Jeanie,
… Have you enough time to follow the great Church squabble? I thought Inge had a very good and convincing article in the Evening Standard the other day24, for which I see the Church Times this week is furious with him. It attributes anger to him, after the habit of people who are angry themselves, but his article was actually quite calm, though annoying, no doubt. But I don’t know why the C. T. should defend Jesuits with such fervour; however, of course it would, against Inge.25
I was sorry Barnes repeated his foolish proposal of a test of consecrated bread against unconsecrated.26 He ought not to have gone on about it, after the Archbishop had told him to shut up. He is a tactless man.
Did you listen in last night to Shaw & Chesterton?27 I thought Shaw rather good on the Church controversy. I expect the B.B.C. were angry with him for referring to it, as they don’t encourage people to be ‘controversial’, which, he said, was why he selected the most controversial subject he could think of to allude to. I wonder if, on the whole, it’s done good or harm to the Church—the brawl, I mean, and subsequent discussion. Good, I should think. Anyhow I hope the Archbishop’s letter has killed for ever any Anglican folly (if there was any) about the origins of man. As to the sacramental question, people take it so oddly that it’s difficult to say whether public discussion is good or bad. All these people who write to the press and say they are ‘wounded’ by Barnes’ view and its expression—can they really be wounded by someone else’s opinion, or is it all humbug? People are such humbugs often that one can’t tell. I can’t myself imagine being hurt or offended or wounded by any publicly expressed views, however different from mine, even on the matters most sacred to me. What is all this being hurt that seems to go on—does it really? I half believe they invent it, to get people who differ from them rebuked by Archbishops. I feel they should try and be harder-headed, more intellectual and abstract, and less touchy and sensitive…
Very much love…
E.R.M.
10, St Andrew’s Mansions, Dorset St, W.1
Whit Sunday [27 May, 1928]
Dearest Jeanie,
… Whom do the Esquimaux missionaries convert? Other Esquimaux? I wish them every possible luck! Ought I to send them money? I enclose an article by an actress recommending all women to spend their money on beauty-improvement. What can we do about this? I am writing an article, and I think we should all SPEAK about it, it is too degraded and fearful. With all these unconverted Esquimaux and unsupported hospitals and penniless old people—and this woman says she would rather go hungry than be plain—and what she means is she would rather other people went hungry than that she were plain. Sometimes I wish I were a clergyman, a bishop, or a pope, or a dean, to speak out from a pulpit. When the clergy do preach on beauty culture they do it all wrong, saying it is ungodly and immodest, instead of attacking its selfishness and imbecility. This actress says it is a sign of brainlessness not to spend money on beauty culture. What a world!
… Very much love.
E.R.M.
10, St Andrew’s Mansions, Dorset St, W.1
4 June, 1928
Dearest Jeanie,
... I am expecting Margaret here for to-night on her way home.28 St David’s must be a lovely place, but obviously there is far too much house-work—she says they keep on dusting and washing up, even when there are no Retreatants staying, and waste all the day at it instead of being out, and she doesn’t like to leave them at it. It must be [a] maddening waste of time. My increasing purpose is to save time for the things I most want to do in it. I fail hopelessly, as most of my time goes on things I don’t want to do at all, but it remains a purpose. Perhaps this is a pity, as it makes a discord in my life and makes me cross and discontented. But I should go quite insane in a house where I had to waste much time on washing up and dusting things that seemed to me as well undusted or only dusted once a week—or at least not so important to dust as to go out into the country (which is as bad as a Hutchinson sentence,29 but this subject makes me lose control of grammar, as perhaps his subject did him). But people’s sense of values are so different that I suppose the Sisters really do like best to live that way. Another lesson against sharing other people’s lives without being able to sit quite loose to them, which one can seldom do…
I have to write an article for the Daily Herald on What most Interests Me. I think of saying country walks (involving the preservation & restoration of foot-paths, and the protection of the country from increasing motoring and building), and also the study of words and their derivations and meanings, and language in general. What would you say, I wonder? People, I expect. And possibly religion? Apropos of religion, I am sending you (partly because you might enjoy it, partly to help its sale) a rather nice book on the Anglican Tradition, by Mr Carpenter.30 I think it is very good and clear, and I hope lots of people will read it, and correct their muddled ideas on the Prayer Book etc. before they get the new book.31 Joynson-Hicks’ book32 is most unfortunate and ill-timed and tiresome. He is a silly little creature. By the way, I see Inge has been denouncing Dr Voronoff and monkey glands, as ‘unholy’.33 Is there anything in this? I mean, does it really add an ape-like quality to those who have it done? If so, it is certainly a serious business, and ma
y lower the level of the human race, which can little afford it….
Are you following ‘Where are the Dead?’ in the Daily News? They’ve none of them yet answered the question.34 I am thinking of writing to them to say I know where the dead are, and will tell for a high enough fee.
Very much love.
E.R.M.
10, St Andrew’s Mansions, Dorset St, W.1
28 June, [1928]
Dearest Jeanie,
Our letters crossed the other day; I suppose telepathy worked. Many thanks for yours. This is a supplement to mine, to answer your questions as to (a) how I am (b) where the dead are.
(a) My health is excellent. I’ve no bad symptoms of anything, and haven’t fainted for ages.
(b) I can’t imagine where the dead can be. As it seemed that the Daily News writers could not imagine either, and never said (except the R.C.,35 as you say, and I knew already what he would think) I gave up the D.N. I can imagine what Robert Lynd would have said (if he’s said it yet).36 He would say they are in heaven. He is a kindly man, and is also almost the only layman I know well (except R.C.s) who believes in survival after death. At least, he gives it the benefit of the doubt. I couldn’t even guess, myself. I should like very much to believe in it, but am not able to, so am divided between wish and actual belief. I couldn’t possibly have written about it. I feel I really agree with Sir Arthur Keith and Julian Huxley and the other scientists,37 but would so much rather think we somehow go on that I don’t like to write about it.
Letters to a Sister Page 3
