The Charles Dickens Letters Project

Advanced Search

Theme

Correspondent

How to cite:

Individual letter:

Dickens, Charles. To [addressee], [date of letter]. Charles Dickens Letters Project, ed. Leon Litvack, Emily Bell, Lydia Craig and Jeremy Parrott (London: Dickens Fellowship). [URL of individual letter], [date of access].

Database:

Charles Dickens Letters Project, ed. Leon Litvack, Emily Bell, Lydia Craig and Jeremy Parrott (London: Dickens Fellowship), DickensLetters.com.

Find us on social media:

Period:

1851-1860

Theme(s):

social issues

speeches

To SIR JOSEPH PAXTON,1 26 JUNE 1855

MS Arthur Fulljames.

Tavistock House

Tuesday Twenty Sixth June 1855

My Dear Paxton

I am much obliged to you for your letter, received on Sunday afternoon. Upon its receipt I read that part of Friday night’s debate2 (which I had not previously seen), and I also wrote to decline attending on Wednesday.3 But on a pledge from Mr. Morley4 that any continuance of a mis-statement of any kind, on the part of the association, should be strongly disavowed at the commencement of the proceedings5 and further that he would state what had passed between us on the subject – I did not consider myself free to cancel my original promise, and I am therefore going.6

Sir Joseph Paxton

Faithfully Yours always

CHARLES DICKENS

1. Sir Joseph Paxton (1801-65; Dictionary of National Biography), gardener, architect and intimate friend of the 6th Duke 48 of Devonshire: see Pilgrim Letters 6, p. 411n. A notable example of efficiency, both in his work at Chatsworth and on the Crystal Palace, he had been advertised (The Times, 22 June) as a speaker at the Administrative Reform Association’s meeting on 27 June: he did not attend.
2. On 22 June W. S. Lindsay (1816-77; Dictionary of National Biography: see Pilgrim Letters 7, p. 610n), a prominent member of the Association, defended himself against charges of business inefficiency and took the opportunity to repeat in the House of Commons details of official inefficiency and waste. He was devastatingly answered by Sir Charles Wood (The Times, 23 June; see further Pilgrim Letters 7, pp. 661-2 and nn). Wood’s refutation and its details that called in question Lindsay’s accuracy were clearly the ground of Paxton’s concern and, presumably, of his withdrawal from the meeting of 27 June.
3. The meeting of the Administrative Reform Association at Drury Lane Theatre, 27 June: for the Association, see Pilgrim Letters 7, pp. 511n, 611n. CD had subscribed to the Association: Pilgrim Letters 7, pp. 610-11
4. See To Samuel Morley, 24 June 1855; Samuel Morley (1809-86; Dictionary of National Biography), Chairman of the Administrative Reform Association: see Pilgrim Letters 7, p. 646n.
5. Morley in his opening remarks at Drury Lane (27 June) referred to the manner in which “statements made at the last meeting” had been controverted by Wood and that Lindsay would “set himself right” in the House of Commons. Morley had no doubt Lindsay would demonstrate his accuracy, “for members of the association were extremely jealous as to the accuracy of the statements made in support of the object they desired to advance” (The Times, 28 June). In The Times report Morley makes no reference to any agreement between himself and CD.
6. Morley had announced at the Association’s meeting on 13 June that CD had “promised to speak at the next meeting” (Daily News, 14 June; see Pilgrim Letters 7, p. 646n) and he had been so advertised in The Times (22 June). For the meeting and CD’s speech see The Times, 28 June; Speeches of CD, ed. K. J. Fielding, pp. 197-208; and Pilgrim Letters 7, pp. 656n, 658n.