LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE FLOWER MISSION.
[TO THE Enrroa OF THE "SPECTATOR'] have read the article on this subject in Macmillan, and I laid it down without being able to bestow on it the unqualified approval which you have given to it.
I pass by some few matters rather hard to swallow, such as the statement that many of the London poor "did not know the difference of a daffodil, a primrose, and a cowslip." I pass over such proposals as that the shareholders in the railways—many of them, no doubt, poor enough—should be compelled to subscribe to the project by the free passage of the hampers. The first is an exaggeration, like that by which the ignorance of prisoners is magnified, when, not understanding the question, they are said to be unacquainted even with the name of our Queen ; the second is only a repetition of the policy by which poor ratepayers are com- pelled to subscribe to hospitals and schools, these being generally exempted by local boards from their fair rating.
It is the main proposition which causes me some uneasiness, an uneasiness to which I am loth to give expression, loth because it is ill work throwing cold water on any scheme for humanising the poor, and because no one is more conscious than myself of the need of something to relieve the intolerable dinginess of the East and other poor parts of London. Had the proposal been only to supply flowers to hospitals, and even to sick-rooms, I should heartily have welcomed it, bat when an almost wholesale distribution of flowers is proposed, I foresee in the proposal great dangers.
First and foremost is the general sense of dependence which is engendered by such a distribution. The evil of these days is that nothing can be taken up, but it must be immediately exaggera- ted into a great movement. If a few ladies, working quietly, were to present flowers, no harm need be done,—nay, much good might arise. But when an article like this appears, and is quoted with approval by you, we who have known London know what will happen. There will be no doubt as to whether "the van will stop- at Miss Stanley's doors." She will only have too many flowers, and then will come that general distribution in which the effect of the per- sonal sympathy which dictated the proposal will be lost. And then. there will come of this scheme just what has come of so many other- kind schemes, a sense on the part of the poor that they are a class apart,. to be petted and patronised, beggars to whom Dives does right to- throw his crumbs, who have a right to stand and gather them up. For if you give flowers to adorn a room, where are you to stop ?.• Why not pictures, why not furniture, why not clothes ? All these- things can be given when the gift is from man to man, but when there comes the wholesale distribution and the wholesale scramble, the very remembrance of which makes one shudder, then comes- the evil.
Besides, will the poor value the flowers thus given? I am sorry to say I read the story of the request of the children (p. 506) for a flower very differently to the kind narrator, and I know that the- other children (p. 506) would have been quite as happy arranging their bits of glass and potsherds. The children of the poor are- just like the children of the rich, will cry after every new thing, and if they get it easily will throw it away quite as quickly, if- only they don't do one worse thing, which I am almost ashamed, for the credit of humanity to mention,—sell it. But, Sir, if these bouquets are distributed wholesale, take my word for it, many will. be sold.
There is, however, one very serious evil yet to be touched upon. I learn from the article of many hothouse flowers being given away. The distribution of these will be a serious evil. It is a. mistake to suppose that the poor are unacquainted with flowers. I make bold to say that there are not 20 per cent, of the rooms in London where you will not find a flower. But the mistake the poor- make is that they generally buy the showy greenhouse flowers, and do not buy the common creeping jenny, window-balm, musk half as much as they ought to do.
There is need of a flower mission in London to encourage flower- shows, and to discourage the exhibition at them of roses, geraniums (except the scarlet), and cinerarias. These will not really grow well in any confined atmosphere, and the poor get discouraged by. finding these a failure, and many fail to take pains with them.
The common fuschias ("Daniel Lambert" is one of the best varieties, and will grow to an enormous size), the lovely creeping jenny, musks, and balsams will grow with moderate care, and the growth of such plants as these ought to be encouraged. The- mere exhibition at window-garden shows of hothouse plants (in- troduced to give an effect to the room) so much discourages- window-plant growers, that they ought never to be admitted. Now I happen to know that by constantly talking to the poor about the beauty of the commoner flowers, by offering large prizes for- the best specimens of these flowers, and small prizes only for the- more showy ones, you can do something to create a public opinion in favour of these plants, which, even in the worst atmosphere, will grow, with moderate attention, luxuriantly.
If Miss Stanley will restrict her proposal to the supply of hos- pitals,-leaving the sick-rooms to be dealt with by individual, if she will withdraw from these wholesale distributions, which almost require the aid of the police (p. 506), and then devote the remainder of her energies to the support of those flower-shows which in Westminster have become historical, and in those flower-shows to the growth of simple plants, she will save herself from the burden of a task which will fairly overwhelm her, and do mischief of which she little knows.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Tamworlh, April 14. BROOKE LAMBERT.
Previous page
