Men of Ability.

 There is in England a society that is called " The Fabian." It professes to represent the Socialists, who are doubtless to be found here and there in Great Britain, and now and then it advocates socialism in magazine articles and pamphlets. A few months ago it issued a more or less intelligible document, which was said to be the preliminary of a manifesto, that has never since been heard of in the politics of the United Kingdom or of any other country. Of its members little is known. Some may be young men who are filled with an enthusiasm for humanity, and who have not learned that they can best serve their country and their fellows by doing some honest manual or intellectual work that is required at the present time ; others may be middle-aged men, who have failed to achieve the extravagant ambitions of their youth, and who still hope that under a system of state socialism they might acquire an influence which is refused to them at the present time by the constituencies. But nothing is to be gained by discussing the merits or the demerits, the occasional wisdom or the many literary follies and logical blunders, of the Fabian Society. It has nothing to say that is new; it has not shown the slightest desire to test the socialist theories by experiments. It repeats theories that are stale to Englishman, who in their practical and matter-of-fact way have tried socialist schemes and found them wanting ; and it has not the courage shown by the promoters of the New Australia movement, who have honestly, though it may be unsuccessfully, attempted to translate their ideas into deeds.

The Fabian Society in itself is not worth a minute's thought by the people in the colonies, who know perfectly well that, even if a grant is given by the Government, the mining industry and the agricultural industry must be carried on by private enterprise, and who bear no grudge against any man who has worked and lived in the colony because he may have happened to make a bigger profit than someone else. Since the first rush to Ballarat and Bendigo there was never a time in the history of Victoria when hard work in the way of prospecting for gold or of cultivating the soil, when as a matter of fact the labour and skill and capital and courage of the individual settler were more required than at the present moment. But the Fabian Society has achieved one triumph. It has given Mr. W. H. MALLOCK the opportunity of dilating on a fact that we have often referred to in our own columns. That fact is that the wealth of the industrial world in modern times has been made by the ability of the few, by the intellectual genius of a small minority. It is claimed by the Socialists that wealth is simply the result of labour. What truth is there in this proposition ? The working man is paid a certain amount for the building of a house, or for the making of a railway, or for any other project. When the job is over his work comes to an end. He has done his duty, but he is not able to make even a suggestion as to how employment can be made both permanent and productive. The same remark may be applied to all the professions. The clergyman, the medical man, the barrister, the engineer, the architect—all of these people simply undertake to do a certain amount of work for the current rate of remuneration. When that is done they have no further hint to give to the community; they themselves have to trust to chance or nature or the law of averages or something else for their next opportunity of employment.

But now and then there appears the able man, the man of ability and originality, who is able to give employment to thousands of people. He may be a great inventor, or he may be a man of exceptionally good judgment in matters of commerce, or he may be a pioneer in new countries, or he may have a practical geological knowledge and become a discoverer of new mining fields. The inventions, however, and the expansion of commerce and the discovery of new mines are all due to the enterprise and the ingenuity and the ability of a few men. It is not capital or labour that provides work. The capitalist, unless he be grievously misled, only embarks upon an enterprise from which he expects a moderate rate of interest. The labourer, whether professional or manual, must be content with the work that is offered to him. At this hour it may be said, in spite of the depression, that a certain number of investors will draw dividends and that a certain number of workmen will receive wages in this colony of Victoria throughout the year. But this fact, however satisfactory it may be, does not increase employment. England, without its inventions and without its commercial enterprise, would only maintain about a fifth of its present population. What would have been the position if GEORGE STEPHENSON had not built a little railway ? What would the country have been if the steam blast had never been heard of in the working of iron ? What would have occurred if BESSEMER had not discovered a cheap process of making steel, and turned the latter end of the nineteenth century into the age of steel? What would happen if manufacturers and merchants were suddenly bereft of all stimulus to find out foreign markets, and in this way make work for their fellow-countrymen? The matter may be put in this way. As a rule, we work for a certain object that only gives employment to a small number of people for a time. The great inventor or the great man of business comes, and, indirectly through his individual energy, he gives an opportunity of employment to thousands. And, as the Socialists admit, the men of intellect are few and far between.

In a country like Great Britain, which possesses the savings of three centuries, and in which there has been both the greatest individual and public enterprise in commercial and industrial affairs, it might be possible for a socialist Government to find work for everybody during a few years. But, as Mr. MALLOCK points out, this would be simply ruinous. What is wanted, what by an inexorable law of nature is essential, is productive industry. It is easy to squander the savings of the past, but the real problem is to make savings for the future. There is no guarantee that this problem can be solved by the state. It is the men of ability, not the capitalists or the labourers, who provide employment and make a general prosperity. This minority is the more entitled to consideration because, as Mr. MALLOCK shows, the great bulk of the people are not anxious for any industrial change, even though it may benefit them in the long run. They are content to go on from day to day and week to week and year to year. It is only a few men who ever feel a desire to make innovations in the industrial methods. Some of those few have made fortunes ; some have been shamefully paid. But would any one of them—and this is the question that affects all socialist theories—sweat out his brains if he knew that he could easily obtain a maximum Government salary of £800, and that he could by no possibility get another penny ? Experience gives answer.

Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1957), Monday 19 March 1894, page 4

ENGLAND'S NEW MISSION.

 (From the Daily News.)

ENGLAND has a new mission to fulfil. She is called on to teach the nations that military power can be united with civil liberty. For the benefit of all posterity she must prove that civilization is capable of defending itself, and of being a noble ally in vindicating the outraged rights of others. She is now threatened by the Times with the "fate of the Dutch and the Venetians," told that she must be the mere spectator of a neighbour's quarrels, and hold her own right and liberties on sufferance, unless she establish a despotism like that of the neighbouring powers. A commercial nation is described as below a military despotism in security. Our mercantile habits and constitutional ideas are said to hinder us in the prosecution of war. " War," it is oracularly said, is war, and cannot be made anything else than war." " It will not be reduced to a system of ledgers, memoranda, desks, stores, uniforms, or other dead or dormant affairs, such as may answer possibly for a domestic institution." Following in the wake of the Edinburgh Review, and other authorities that discard reflection and adopt positively the opinion of their fathers, our vehement contemporary, in advocating a re-organisation of our military system, describes despotism as essential to military success, and holds up the mercantile system and civilisation as inimical to it, and as bringing feebleness and degradation on the nation. It is implied even that England must become a second-rate power, or must imitate the Czar and the Emperor of the French and that, for the purposes of war, we must sacrifice our liberties. Agreeing with the Times in the necessity of reorganising our military system ; believing, however, that the extension of trade is essential to the growth of national power that liberty and civilisation would not be secure if not stronger than despotism ; we must repudiate its doctrines, and show that the re-organisation we demand requires more, and not less, freedom. Our own history is full of encouragement. In spite of our radically and essentially bad military system, which in every war has been more or less set aside before we could succeed, no nation of Europe has performed more brilliant feats of arms, or, in proportion to the amount of its population, has exercised greater military power. The least despotic of the nations of Europe, uniting her navy with her army, England has long been the most powerful military nation of modern times. Nor can we suppose, when we cast our, eyes across the Atlantic, that the freedom which there prevails is incompatible with great military power, whether it be for offensive or defensive warfare. No nation of Europe is insensible to the force of the United States. If free England has no reason to fear, the Czar assiduously courts the republicans. In the time of Louis Philippe their power was not despised by France. If required in any good cause to put forth their strength by sea or land, they would be found a formidable foe by the most powerful despotism of Europe. Of England and the United States it is the boast that the liberties of the people are in their own keeping ; they are their own guardians ; they and their respective Governments are identical ; and the consequence is that the whole military power of each nation, whatever may be its amount, can be directed against a foreign foe, while every despotism in Europe must employ a large part of its military force to secure its own existence. Though in a great national war the thrones of Russia, Prussia, and France might be safe, no sense of security can come to the mind of the Sovereign of any of these states sufficient to make him send, as our Government might, every soldier to the war, and rely on his people to protect him and themselves. Austria is only held together by its army, and nearly half of that must always be employed in keeping her enslaved subjects in subjection. Liberty, therefore, far from being adverse to military power in a nation, is essential to its completeness. We are not required to imitate the despots, in order to become effectually military. On the contrary, our duty and our business require us to adapt our military institutions to the principles of our civil life and the present condition of society. There already exists, as we have previously shown, from the Prime Minister downwards, in military matters, all the absolute power required and the great fault lies in the fact that, this absolute power, and all the wealth annually devoted to support it, instead of being, like our commerce and manufactures, thrown open to the whole people, is monopolised by a class, and made subservient to the purposes of their ambition. The obvious consequence is that the army is excluded from making the same progress as competition introduces into every other department of society. At the same time, the same monopoly extends to all the higher branches of the civil service, which ought to improve and regulate the military, but, which, like the military, is cut off from improvement, and remains for ever behind the advancing people. Thus, neither our civil or military services are imbued with the new life that is for ever springing up. The progress of society deprives both of the vigour of old conservatism; and the self exclusion they impose upon themselves shuts them out from all share in the new vigour of progress. For about half a century, with some interruption, the government of the army was in the hands of the Duke of York and the Duke of Wellington. Throughout the same period, while every walk of civil life abounded in men of great acquirements, we had a succession of Ministers, from Addington to Derby, of the most commonplace abilities. Our chemistry, our machinery, our manufactures, are pre-eminent among the nations—our statesmanship is below par. For the long period of fifty years, with the exception of Canning, whom we do not rate very high, and who held power for too short a time to effect much we have not had one man of great talents at the head of affairs. Sir Robert Peel, illustrious in many respects, was chiefly great from knowing when to yield a commanding or organising spirit he did not possess. More illustrious even than Sir Robert Peel, the Duke of Wellington was essentially, in all his habits, a soldier; and his very greatness as a soldier, combined with the well-merited reverence of his countrymen, shut up his mind against a complete knowledge of, and sympathy with, the great social improvements made outside the Horse Guards and Downing-street. The Duke of York, though not an absolute ninny, was in no respect a great man and as he was never controlled by any Minister of great talents, and had no confidence in himself, our military system became, in his hands, in order to guard against his inability and rashness, a system of bonds and checks and dilatoriness. Though the Duke of Wellington suffered very much from the system while in the Peninsula, he achieved greatness under it, and he became attached to it. After he was its chief he had no opportunity of seeing it work in war, or he would have had strength of character enough to reform it, as he reformed the penal laws. We have only, therefore, to look back at the chiefs of the Horse Guards for nearly fifty years, to be convinced that our military system was established on the principle of giving a monopoly of all the honours and emoluments to the rich and the noble, and of taking into the ranks only the dregs of society. The army is paralysed, as trade was, by a monopoly, and more despotism would destroy it outright The Commander-in-Chief, if he knows how to exercise his power, is a perfect despot. The Prime Minister, if he knows how to command, is perfectly despotic over the Commander-in-Chief. He can dismiss him at his pleasure, if he be not a King's son, or the Queen's Consort. What is required to improve the army is to open every rank to merit, to increase the pay of the soldier, to relieve him from the degradation of being flogged, and from irksome discipline and constraint not essential to actual warfare, to banish from the army absurd clothing, useless regulations, parades, and inspections, to invite better men into its ranks, and thus make it a force in which the best men of the country may be proud to serve, and may hope to rise to the highest dignities. We are required to do this in order to reconcile liberty and military power, to infuse into the whole army the vivifying genius of freedom, the power of knowledge, and the order which springs from division of labour. We must get rid of boards, of independent Master-Generals of Ordnance, and of First Lords of the Admiralty, excepting as military subordinate officers. We must have in the Prime Minister, or some one minister immediately responsible to the representatives of the people, a person bound to regulate our whole military power in subservience to the principles of our civil life. We must take care that he be one of the people themselves, familiar with all their knowledge, acquainted with their men of genius, friendly to all the great interests of the country, and eager to avail himself, in organising our army, of all the helps which the arts and sciences of civil life can afford. To stand aloof from them, as our military rulers have hitherto stood, is to cut off the army from all the natural sources of military power.

Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Wednesday 9 May 1855, page 5

THE SMOKE NUISANCE.

 HOUSE OF Commons, March 9.

 Sir R. Peel rose, pursuant to notice to call attention to this subject. He said: I trust this may be considered a question of sufficient importance to justify me in bringing it under the notice of the House. I shall endeavour to detail, as concisely as I can, some of the evils arising from smoke furnaces in the towns and country districts of England, with the view of inducing the Government, if possible, to legislate on the question during the present session. The question is one which affects the sanitary condition, the health, the comfort and the happiness of almost every class in the community, but more especially of the operative classes in the great centres of industry in the north. All the evils of which I have to complain arise from the nuisance created by the smoke of coal, a mineral our resources in which it is impossible to over-estimate. But the greater value of this article the more careful, I contend, ought we to be to observe due economy in the use of it. Coal is, I think, positively, more valuable than the precious metals of the mines of Mexico, because it is applicable to all the purposes of human labour. Considering the number of hands employed in this branch of industry, the capital invested, the tonnage of the vessels employed in carrying the coal, and the value of the article when extracted from the soil, I believe there is no gentleman who will not see with me that the subject I am bringing before the House is one of the deepest importance, and that if real be so valuable a material we ought in the same degree to be most careful in its economic use. (Hear. ) that the fact is that, instead of this most valuable mineral being economised, the most reckless waste of it prevails. In all the Midland Counties—Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Durham—as I have been informed by most eminent analytical chemist, 40 per cent. less heat is produced than might be obtained by proper combustion, and that gentleman believes that 10 per cent., and, perhaps, in some cases, 20 per cent. of the coal passed up through the chimney, and was also nearly lost as far as regards the purpose for which it was used. That was a most important statement. A reason of great eminence, Mr M'Culloch, said about twenty years ago that if the coal trade of England continued at the same rate as in 1845, there was a sufficient supply of coal in the coal fields and seams of this country to last for 2000 years. But what is the case in 1865? The consumption, including waste, in the United Kingdom, amounts to three times the quantity expended in 1845. In the year 1845 the consumption in Great Britain for domestic and all manufacturing purposes was 31,800,000 tons, and there were exported in the same year 1,800,000 tons. In 1865, however, the amount of coal raised in Great Britain was 96,000,000 tons of which there were consumed for domestic and all purposes of manufacture 87,000,000 tons, 9,000,000 tons being exported. This clearly shows the immense importance of this question. There are laid on the table of the House of every year most instructive returns as to the consumption of coal and cinders. I find that in 1850 there were exported from the several ports of the United Kingdom 3,350,000 tons of coal and cinders, the declared value of which was £1,282,000. In 1864 the quantity exported was 8,000 000 tons, and the declared value £4,160,000. I recollect being struck by an observation made by the hon. member for Glasgow in his able speech on seconding the Address at the opening of Parliament. The hon. member, in referring to the general condition of trade, and the rapid rate at which the manufactures of the country were progressing, warned the manufacturers not to forget that the supply of coal in England was not inexhaustible and told them that they should, by the closest economy in its use, do all in their power to prevent what would be a great national calamity— viz, an increased difficulty in obtaining coal, and a consequent increase of its price. Those observations are sufficient to induce the House to consider whether something may not be done on this subject, and I would ask the Home Secretary to give a pledge that, in the course of the present session, he will undertake to legislate on it. I know that he is occupied with many questions, but I believe that, if he should be able to lay on the table a bill with regard to this subject, it might before the close of the session become law. I would ask whether there is not in the Home Office an analysis of patents for smoke-burning made by Mr Holland some years ago; for if so, I think it would be desirable to have that paper produced ; and I also suggest to the right hon. baronet not to attempt to propose a committee or commission of inquiry, for we have had enough of them. Let us deal with the question in this House, must believe that if the right hon. baronet were to consult some gentleman in London or Manchester who had given attention to the matter, he might be able in a week to frame a bill which would be satisfactory and efficient. If he would only consult Dr. Joule, who has written on heat, Dr. Angus Smith, Mr. Hunt of the Museum of Practical Geology, Professer Tyndall, Professor Thomson, of Glasgow University ; Dr Roscoe, of Manchester; Dr Franklin, and Professors of the Royal Institution, he would in a short time inform himself of the importance of this question, and would be able to say what smoke really is. Perhaps some hon. gentlemen do not know what smoke is. (a laugh), though they feel it, and live in the pestilential atmosphere which surrounds them, and which is ruining the health of the labouring classes. Unless perfect combustion takes place when the furnace is lighted, smoke rises, and, without an adequate supply of air, the evil which so much distresses the country cannot be overcome. I have a letter from a well known gentleman in Manchester, addressed to a member of this House, which forcibly shows what can be done in this matter. The letter is dated March 1, 1866, and the writer states :—

" In regard to the practicability of smoke prevention there is no longer any question; and further, it has been proved by the most careful experiments, that its prevention increases the economic value of the fuel. (Hear, hear.) Two conditions only are requisite—admission of atmospheric air above the fuel to mix with the gases evolved in order to supply sufficient oxygen for their perfect combustion, and a high temperature in the furnace; and as neither of these conditions can be obtained where there is deficient draught, this deficiency may be said to be the chief cause of smoke. In Glasgow and Dundee measures have been taken of late years to abate the smoke nuisance, and several prosecutions have ensued, but although some good has undoubtedly been done, the results cannot be said to have been altogether successful."

I have been informed by the hon. member for North Durham that an agitation is getting up in his division of the country—for it is not the manufacturers who oppose measures of prevention—to put an end, if possible to a state of things which causes a gross destruction of property. Some ignorant people speak of the cost of smoke prevention, but there could not be a greater fallacy ; for it will cost nothing, but, on the contrary, insure a saving. With reference to legislation on this important subject in past years, it will be found in the journals of this House, that actually as far back as the year 1316, the question was agitated in Parliament, that on account of the intolerable nuisance of smoke the use of coal must be prohibited altogether. (A laugh. ) I don't want to to so far as that. ( A laugh. ) I believe I am justified in saying that the first person who agitated this question in Parliament was Lord Redesdale in the other House; but the first person who passed a bill on the subject was Lord Palmerston, when he was Home Secretary. His bill was called the Metropolis Smoke Nuisance Abatement Bill, and it is really interesting to refer to the remarks that fell from that lamented statesman in bringing forward that measure. No opposition was offered to it. The metropolitan members supported it. There was only one hon. member who thought it too late to proceed with it. The hon. member who has just entered the House (Sir M. Peto) has assured me in the most cordial manner that he will support such a measure as I have described. ( Hear, hear.) Lord Palmerston said,—and I should wish the House to be impressed with the words that fell from that lamented statesman—he said :—

" It was no argument to urge, because the nuisance had been borne so long, that therefore it could be come a little longer. Manufacturers might say they could not consume their own smoke, but if Parliament would only say, 'You must do so,' the smoke should be consumed, and the public would be relieved from this nuisance."

(Hear, hear. ) An hon. member before me (Mr. Dunlop) informs me that a bill for Scotland passed some years ago which was in operation only a few weeks, during which the whole smoke in Scotland had well nigh disappeared, but some flaw was discovered in the bill, and immediately the smoke nuisance recommenced, and was continued because the bill was considered valueless. (A laugh. ) Lord Palmerston went on to say :—

"If ever there was a case in which he would not say the interests, but the prejudices of the few were opposed to the interests of the many, this was such a case. Here were a few, perhaps 100, connected with the different furnaces of London who wished to make 2,000,000 of their fellow inhabitants swallow their smoke, and who thereby helped to deface all our architectural monuments and to impose the greatest inconvenience and injury upon the lower class. (Hear, hear. ) Here were the prejudices and the ignorance—the affected ignorance— of a small combination of men set up against the material interest, the physical enjoyment, the health, the comfort of upwards of 2,000,000 of their fellow men. (Hear, hear.) He would not believe that Parliament would back these smoke producing monopolists." (Hear, hear.) I want to see my right hon. friend the Home Secretary speak and act in that bold indecorous manner. (Hear, hear.) The bill passed a third reading unanimously. In the other House it was intrusted to Lord Lansdowne. The first and second reading having been passed without discussion in committee, Lord Lansdowne referred to it as affecting the comfort of every class of society, and said such was the gradual encroachment of the enemy that for years past they had been living not under the canopy of Heaven, but under one of their own creation. It was an evil that called for the distinct interference of the Legislature. His lordship continued that the experiment of the last seven years had abundantly proved that with perfect safety, without imposing any burdens upon individuals beyond home amount of attention and trouble, they might require the extinction and consumption of all smoke generated by manufacturing establishments. That bill passed in 1853. Glassworks and potteries were at first exempted by this bill, but subsequently included in the amended bill of 1856. There was no housekeeper who was not able to vouch for the increased difficulty in maintaining the commonest cleanliness in consequence of the nuisance which the bill would abate. The smoke so affected the clothing of the working classes that it was computed every mechanic paid at least five times the amount of the original cost of his shirt for the number of washings rendered necessary (" hear," and a laugh) : and in parts of Whitechapel, where the provisions of a local Act enforced the consumption of smoke, the persons who had been compelled to consume their own smoke had found themselves benefited in point of economy by the change. (Hear.) Lord Redesdale congratulated the country upon this bill, and expressed his obligations to the Government. Glassworks and potteries were exempted, which he regretted. A bill in 1853 was passed for improvement of Newcastle-on-Tyne, where more glass was made than in any other place in England at that time, and no exemption was required in that instance. And has not the effect been satisfactory as far as the metropolis is concerned? I have numberless letters—I will not trouble the House by reading them—from manufacturers in London, stating that although they were first opposed to that measure on its introduction, they now saw its valuable economic results. Only last year a bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament, respecting alkali works. Lord Derby made a most effective speech on the occasion, and the measure became law Inspectors of alkali works were appointed throughout the country. I have lately seen the inspector of the alkali works in Manchester, who informed me this had been the result of that Act —whereas 40 per cent. of muriatic acid escaped before into the atmosphere of Manchester and the vicinity, at present little more than 1 per cent. escaped into the atmosphere, although the Act permitted 5 per cent. (Hear, hear. ) Can anything be more satisfactory than that fact? And it is equally applicable to the detestable nuisance of smoke, which is so prejudicial to the health of everybody. I have two letters upon this subject which are well worthy of being brought under the attention of the House. The first is from the town clerk of Blackburn, who says :—

"I have not the slightest doubt that so far as our park is concerned, the vegetation is much injured by the smoke, although it is situate on high ground and some distance from the factory chimneys. It is much to be regretted that there is not some compulsory law for the consumption of smoke. I attribute the present non-observance of the existing law to the fact that its enforcement rests with the local authorities, who are individually as a rule large manufacturers, and as such creators of the nuisance." (Hear, hear) The other letter is from a gentleman well known at Accrington. It is dated February 29th, 1856 He says :—"Your letter refers to a subject on which I have had some considerable experience of a very disagreeable nature. To begin with, our township of Oswaldtwistle, and within 300 yards of my house we have naphtha works, emitting a most offensive smell, and most destructive to vegetation. If they are contained, all the trees within their influence will die Then adjoining we have bone boiling works polluting the atmosphere in the most dreadful manner. Now, what is the general effect of these works upon the neighbourhood. Many a time my house is filled with nauseous effluvium, and my land as building land is ruined, for no one would choose to reside in such a locality. Mr. S. has suffered dreadfully in the health of his family, Mr. B.'s occupation of his house is destroyed, and Mr G. has experienced the same evils. It may be said what are the local Boards doing? I answer they are doing nothing, although the strongest representations have been made to them. But the fact is the Acts of Parliament constituting these local Boards are not sufficiently definite or stringent. I and my neighbours are joining together and preparing evidence for legal proceedings, but we think it very hard we should be put to a large expense for that which we think ought to be done by the local Board. If Sir R. Peel take up the matter I have no doubt he will accomplish his purpose and greatly benefit society." (Hear, hear. ) That is very true, but I am informed by many most influential manufacturers that they are quite prepared to second any effort on the part of the Government by statutory enactment to abate this nuisance. Many towns have attempted to legislate on this subject. In 1862 Salford came for a bill to effect the improvement that was required; but it failed. Since then Newcastle on Tyne, Glasgow, Dundee, and many other places have made similar efforts ; but what is required is that the Government should take the matter up and legislate for the whole country by one uniform statutory enactment for the whole country.

(Hear.) Having said so much, I should wish, if I have not already detained the House too long (Hear hear), to allude for a moment to the case of Manchester, where I have just been to inform myself as to the real condition of things there. What is the coal consumption of Manchester ? It is prodigious. At this moment the population of London, I believe is about 3,000,000, and the annual consumption of coal amounts to about 5,300,000 tons; but in Manchester with a population of certainly not more than 380,000 the coal consumption is estimated at 2,000,000 tons per annum, within a radius of three miles from the Exchange. There are many manufacturers in Manchester consuming more than 300 tons of coal a week. Now, just conceive what a saving would be effected if a proper system of combustion was introduced (hear hear), whereas it is scientifically ascertained that 40 per cent. less heat is produced now than would be by proper combustion. (Hear, hear.) I visited Stockport. I could hardly see it for smoke. ( A laugh.) Salford has been suffering from the smoke nuisance to a degree it is hardly possible to describe. And so with regard to Burnley, Bury, and Rochdale, without exception the three dirtiest towns of Lancashire. (A laugh. ) They have no public park, and the operatives who are labouring all day long in their industrious hives have no means of relaxation or opportunity of breathing a pure atmosphere. What is the sanitary condition of Manchester? The average annual mortality in England is 22 per 1000, and in some rural villages it falls to 17 per 1000; but a large coal burning towns like Manchester it rises to 34 per 1000. This vast increase in the death rate is entirely owing to the smoke and the noxious exhalations from the burning coal. ( "Oh," and laughter. ) I saw the other day a letter in the other from a gentleman at Birmingham, stating that smoke could not injuriously affect the health of the people because the cholera had not severely attacked that town when it last visited this country. The writer forgot that Birmingham is built upon sandstone, and was, therefore, not so liable to be attacked by that disease. As a proof that smoke does not keep away the cholera I may instance the case of Bilston, which, although the most smoky town in England, suffered greatly from the terrible scourge on its last visitation. (Hear ) I hold in my hand a report that was published in the quarterly returns of the Registrar-General of Health, which forms a most interesting account of the sanitary state of Manchester. The report is drawn up by Mr John Leigh, registrar of the Deansgate sub-district of Manchester, and it contains much that deserves attention now that there is a possibility of the cholera again visiting this country. It is the duty of Government to take time by the forelock in order to preserve us as far as possible from the attacks of this pestilence. Mr Leigh says in his report,—
"I very carefully traced nearly every case of cholera during the last two invasions of this disease in Manchester, and invariably I found there had been direct communication which infected persons or an infected atmosphere. I entertain no more doubt of the infectious nature of cholera than that of smallpox or scarlatina. Its course can be accounted for in no other way. Under the threatening prospect of a fresh invasion it is best to look the disease fairly in the face, and not, under the fear of being considered alarmists, to ignore its nature and neglect the means of breaking the force of the attack. It is doubtful, too, whether in our time typhus does not absolutely originate in the ill conditions of our crowded towns. Be that as it may, nothing is more certain than that the ordinary unfavourable conditions of large towns, with their festering graveyards, decomposing offal, noisome exhalations of tallow chandlers, and other manufactories of animal matters, stenches of sewers and drains, and stagnant atmosphere of courts and alleys, are the predisposing causes of diseases especially infectious diseases. If they do not actually produce disease, they so reduce the tone and strength of the population, so vitiate their blood and exalt their susceptibility of deleterious influences that a constant tendency exists to take on diseased action, whether in the form of typhus, scarlatina, smallpox, or cholera. A state of chronic disorganisation is always attracting the flying bands of the enemy. It is not a question of food and wages ; the day labourer in the country who earns his 10s. or 12s. a week, and it tastes animal food but once that week, is ruddy, strong, and healthy, compared with the highly paid and well fed artisan, who works in a crowd of fellow workmen, and sleeps in the narrow street or confined court where his house stands, and whose cadaverous looks tell the tale of his surroundings." How true that is any one must feel who has been in that town. (Hear, hear) The expressly states that their ill-looks are not to be traced to bad water, for he says,—" No town in England is better and more abundantly supplied with good and pure water than Manchester. " He says the town is well scavengered, and the streets are kept constantly clean. "What is it, then," he asks, "that makes Manchester so unhealthy a town?" He replies to his question thus,— "Close to my town house, on the west side, is a large graveyard, in which interments are yet made daily. On one side of the street, separated by a small interval, is a large tallow-melting work recently established; on the other side of the street an ancient and time-honoured tallow-chandlery, with its vested right of poisoning the neighbours. Add to the noxious products which load the atmosphere from these sources the black outpourings from innumerable chimneys, and a tolerable conception of the sanitary state of the neighbourhood will be obtained. The unhealthiness of Manchester is due to its vitiated atmosphere. " Again, he says that no plant will live in the town unless it be washed two or three times a week. (Laughter) He proceeds:— "Let anyone examine the lungs after death of a person who has been long resident in Manchester, and in the bronchial glands he will find a fluid substance, inhaled soot, as black and thick as ink. " I do think I have made out a case that should induce Government to take up the subject. (Loud cheers ). It is idle to attempt to establish public parks in such districts. You cannot get trees to grow or plants to flourish. I am informed that the trees in the park at Salford are dying. I have received a letter from the curator of the Salford Park, stating that the trees are all being destroyed because Parliament will not legislate upon the subject. That gentleman says :—

"In respect to your inquiry as to the injury which this park suffers from the smoke of Manchester and Salford, I may say that, in the opinion of the members of the Park Committee, who have served from the opening in 1846, and my own opinion from watching its effects from 1851, the smoke is gradually destroying the many fine trees, elms, horse chestnuts oak, ash, and ornamental shrubs. Year by year the damage gains in amount, and even the grass gets poorer, and requires to be renewed by sodding brought from a distance, for the seed will not grow in such a smoked and impure atmosphere." I think these are observations that require the attention of Government, coming as they do from different parts of the country. This morning I received a letter from a gentleman residing at a village near Birmingham, stating that the trees in that neighbourhood are dying in consequence of the smoky atmosphere. Any man who is fond of the country must feel pained at the sickly look of the little widow gardens of the poor man in the large towns of Manchester and Yorkshire.

 It was Bacon who said that he accounted a garden as the purest of human pleasures, and as the greatest refreshment to the spirit of man, and it is with the object of placing within the reach of the poor that refreshment of the spirit of man that philanthropic people have established the large parishes that are now springing up in the neighbourhood of all great towns. (Hear.) I am sorry that I have been compelled to detain the House so long in drawing attention to this subject, but my excuse must be the great desire I have to check the growing evils I have alluded to. (Hear, hear. ) There may be topics of a more exciting character in connexion with the rights and privileges of the working classes to exercise a greater power than they now do in the government of the State ; but in my humble judgment we can discuss no nobler question than how to abate the noxious vapours a great city. (Hear, hear.) The evil is one of our own creating, and we are told by men of science that we can prevent it if we please, and therefore it is the bounden duty of Government to deal with the question, by taking such steps as may tend to the comfort, convenience, and the happiness of the working-classes in large towns. (Hear.) I therefore ask the right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department—than whom I am sure no men holding high office is more disposed to give a fair and careful consideration to all questions appertaining to public interest—to give us an assurance that Government will legislate upon this question during the present session of Parliament, as by so doing he will confer a benefit, nay a blessing, upon the people of this country. (Hear, hear. ) A measure of the kind I wish to see introduced would in a great degree affect the health, the comfort, and the happiness of millions of working men whose daily toil in a vitiated atmosphere is the main support of our manufacturing interests. I do not move any amendment.

Mr Henderson had given some attention to this subject, and thought it was very desirable that in all large manufactories the smoke should be consumed. It would be a great boon to the working classes if they were permitted to see a little daylight. An eminent example of what could be done in the way of controlling this smoke nuisance could be seen by any hon. member who might choose to note the different manufacturing establishments between Battersea and Blackwall from the deck of one of the river steamers. It was not, however, in places like the metropolis that nuisances of this kind prevailed to any extent. They were chiefly found in districts where coal was cheap. There were men who were always opposed to changes which offered any prospect of effecting any saving, and there were others who persisted in walking in the old beaten track, refusing to concur in any change as being nothing short of innovation, and whose opposition would be enhanced if the change were necessitated by anything which could be regarded in the light of compulsion. When, however, it could be shown that by their adherence to the present system these people were causing injury to the health and to the property of their neighbours the Legislature might, he thought, be very fairly called upon to interfere. (Hear, hear.) It could not be doubted that an atmosphere charged with smoke was prejudicial both to health and property. In some districts it was found impossible to open a window for the purpose of ventilation, without having the room and its contents covered with "blacks," The volumes of smoke that issued from these manufactories were left at the mercy of the wind and the atmosphere, and frequently caused great discomfort and annoyance to those who lived within several miles. In one garden particularly, situated at a distance of three miles from these offenders, it was impossible to touch a leaf or a flower without having the fingers soiled by these sooty deposits. He should be about the last person to place any impediment in the way of carrying on manufactures, but when it could be shown that this nuisance could not only be avoided, but absolutely abolished, and that, too, advantageously to the offenders, he thought it would require little further argument to induce the House to legislate upon the subject. (Hear, hear.) The employment of Juke's apparatus had been found exceedingly advantageous. Even in those cases in which it was at present found difficult to avoid the nuisance, hopes were entertained that some effectual remedy might be discovered, and he trusted that this result might be attained. At all events, he had such confidence in the scientific acquirements of the age, that he did not believe the difficulty would endure many years if the Government took the subject thoroughly in hand. The question was the more important, inasmuch as it was intimately connected with the rapid disappearance of our coal-beds, the duration of which would not, he believed, be so long as was generally anticipated.

Mr Hanbury could bear personal testimony to the almost complete success attending the use of Jukes's apparatus. In the early morning, it was true, some smoke was generated, but during the day the chimney sent forth but little smoke. The economical result in the employment of fuel had been extremely satisfactory during the previous year ; the saving effected to the firm with which he was connected had amounted to nearly £2000. (Hear, hear.) Their expenses had been much diminished because they had been able to employ small and dust coal instead of the large coal which was absolutely necessary for the former furnaces. Those living now in the neighbourhood of the silk weaving manufactories were enabled to open their windows and could enjoy the pure air without being subjected to any annoyance from their proximity to the factories.

Mr. A. F. Egerton thought that the thanks of the House were due to the right hon. baronet who had introduced this subject. (Hear, hear ) He believed, however, that the right hon. baronet had overstated the results of smoke upon the health.
Sir R. Peel —I quoted the mortality tables.
Mr A. F. Egerton was of opinion that because the rate of mortality at Manchester was high it did not follow that the increase was owing to the effects of the smoke. He believed that the high rate of mortality of that place might be otherwise explained, and might be attributed to a great extent to the overcrowding of the population. Undoubtedly the presence of smoke did not tend to purify the atmosphere of a locality. Living, however, as he himself did, at no great distance from Manchester, he had yet to learn that the working men in the neighbourhood were less healthy than those living in the rural district. In all other respects he perfectly coincided in the remarks which had fallen from the right hon baronet. The steamers both on the Mersey and Thames consumed their own smoke, and there could be no doubt that if a similar plan were generally adopted a great saving of fuel would result. (Hear.) They had endeavoured in Lancashire to employ smoke-consuming apparatus, and although those attempts had been attended with great success, unless attention was paid to the matter by the stokers, smoke would, at certain times, escape and blacken the atmosphere. (Hear, hear.) He trusted that the attention of the right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be given to the subject, and that instead of local Acts one Act would be framed applying to the whole of the country.

Sir M. Peto would not have troubled the House with any remarks upon the subject under discussion had it not been for the fact that Lord Palmerston had asked him, when the subject was before dealt with, to make a series of experiments with a view to ascertain whether the evil complained of could be met in a practical manner. When the late Premier was assured that the consumption of smoke would result in a great saving to the manufacturer, he took action in the matter; and the result had shown that many instances could be cited similar to that mentioned by the hon. member for Middlesex, who had mentioned the fact that his firm had saved upwards of £2000 a year by the adoption of a process which had always before been looked on as objectionable. He saw no reason for believing that the same result would not attend the general adoption of the London plan throughout the country. If an example was wanted, he would point to Leicester, which had as many manufactories in and around it as any town in the kingdom, yet in the very centre of Leicester flowers would be found blooming as fresh as in a country village. This had been done by the manufacturers, who had voluntarily made themselves subject to a law of their own. (Hear, hear. ) The right hon. baronet had not overstated the case. It must be remembered, however, that manufactories often gave off vapours far more deleterious to the public health than the smoke itself, and unless some means were taken of stopping all exhalations the mischief would not be put an end to. He remembered that soon after the last Smoke Act was passed several hon. gentlemen found, as they walked on the terrace skirting the river, that they were greeted with the odours of certain bone-boiling establishments, and other objectionable works of Lambeth, they were accordingly not long in extending the operation of the Smoke Act to works of that description. He trusted the Act which had done so much good to the metropolis would be extended by the Government to the country, he was sure the result would be equally satisfactory.

Sir G. Grey : I am sure I only give utterance to the general sentiment of the House when I say the right hon. member for Tamworth has done good service in bringing this matter before us. The time of the House, I am sure, cannot be employed to more advantage than in endeavouring to devise some practical means whereby we may contribute to the health and enjoyment of the great majority of the people.

But, Sir, I would, with the permission of the right hon. gentleman, observe that he seems scarcely to have informed himself as to how far the laws at present in existence give him power to do what he desires—namely, to enforce the consumption of smoke in furnaces and manufacturers' fireplaces. Indeed, it is not generally known that the evil complained of would be very much decreased if the means at present in our hands were made full use of; and, although it may be desirable that some such Act as that suggested by the right hon. gentleman should pass, it is far more desirable that we should endeavour to discover some means to insure that the law when passed should be strictly carried out. (Hear, hear. ) As regards London, I may mention that the exceptions made to the first Act were so made because it was thought it would be unfair to force certain manufacturers to go to expense unnecessarily ; but it was not long before it was found that the change would be an economical rather than an expensive change, after the first outlay had been made for the purpose of providing the machinery necessary to secure the proper consumption of the smoke. The exceptions were, therefore, swept away, and the proprietors of those manufactories before excepted found themselves garners instead of losers by coming under the operation of the Act. It desirable that the owners and managers of works should bear in mind that their outlay in the first instance, though, perhaps, considerable in amount, will be repaid in the long run. The right hon. gentleman has alluded to the probable exhaustion of the coal fields. Great doubt exists in the minds of scientific men upon that subject, and I will not now enter into it further than today that, as we cannot look upon our coal fields as in-exhaustible, we should use our fuel with great care, and take every precaution against waste in order that the supply may last as long as possible. But what Sir, is the state of the law at present? A clause was inserted in the Towns Improvement Act of 1847, absolutely requiring that every fireplace or furnace used in working engines by steam, or in any manufactory, should be so constructed as to consume the smoke arising from it; and the penalties attached to the Act are ordered to be enforced if these regulations are broken. This was a general Act, and it was required that its provisions should be incorporated in a special Act, in order to apply it to any large towns or districts. This has been done to a very large extent; and I may remark that the provisions of the general Act are equally as stern as the law relating to the metropolis. So that the evil complained of exists to its present extent only because the local authorities do not, from some reason or other, enforce the provisions of the law. (Hear, hear. ) Really, Sir, I am afraid that local government is permitting itself to be placed upon its trial. Our proceedings here to night almost amount to preferring an indictment against the local authorities throughout the country, because, having the law in their hands, they refrain from enforcing it. (Hear, hear. ) I wish the right hon. gentleman would induce some of his correspondents such as the gentleman who wrote from Blackburn and other populous places, to enforce the laws they have before they come to the Government for more stringent enactments. What is the difference between the practice in London and in the country in reference to these Acts ? The metropolis is subject to the local directions of the police, who act under the Chief Commissioner of Police, and he in his turn is subject to the direction of the Secretary of State, who authorises prosecutions when cases of infringement of the law have been reported to him. Prosecutions are not frequent now because the nuisance his greatly abated, owing, I believe, to the judicious manner in which the law has been enforced by the magistrates, who have refrained from dealing harshly with offenders, and have always offered to postpone judgment in the hope that during the time allowed proper means would be provided by the persons charged for complying with the Act. My right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reminds me that in cases, where the police have neglected their duty in the way I have described, the local authorities should be requested to refund the contributions made by the Government to the local police fund. (Laughter.) I believe, Sir, we shall have no difficulty in passing a general law. It is desirable that it should be done, but I would again remind the House that we must endeavour at the same time to find some means by which we can insure that the law will be enforced. We all know how very zealous local authorities are of the Government, and how objectionable it is to have an inspector going through the country trying to find cause for summoning manufacturers. We must see it we cannot induce the local bodies, and those whom they represent, to feel it to be to their interest to have such a law, and we may hope that interest or higher considerations will induce them to enforce it. I have directed inquiry to be made in many of our principal towns as to the means taken to enforce the law in them, and the result will, I hope, throw some light upon the matter and enable us more surely to find a remedy for the evil we have under consideration (Cheers.)

Mr. Henley remarked upon the desirability of setting inspectors to work. He was of opinion that if informers were pitted against the smoke, the one nuisance would soon destroy the other. (Laughter.)

Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Monday 11 June 1866, page 3

THE EVOLUTION OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT.

 (By GEORGE BLACK.)

CHAPTER XXI.

The Reformed Parliament of 1833 proved somewhat reactionary in its influence, by reason of the inexperience of many of its members and the extreme opinions of an other section. It was by no means singular in this respect — legislative bodies recruited after a reform battle which has enlarged the area of enlistment have always been deemed to overshoot the mark, in the opinion of the timid, the conservative, and the cautious.
One of the foremost leaders of radical thought in this seething cauldron of unsettled opinion, was Joseph Hume, member for Montrose, and the son of a Scotch fisherman of that town. He had travelled the world, first as a seaman, and had made a large fortune in India, which he was now spending in defence of liberty and the rights of man. Hume was returned in 1816, but did not at once espouse the side of the people. Indeed, it was probably the already mentioned massacre by cavalry of over 400 men and women at St. Peters, Manchester, in 1819, which showed unmistakably where his sympathies lay. Hume's denunciation in parliament of this carnage was so unparalleled, so unconstitutional, that he was simply howled down, and indeed from that date onward, until the passing of the Reform Act, there existed a conspiracy to drown this voice whenever he raised it in the people's cause. When the question of reform was before the country, the party of which Hume was the nominal head, had demanded manhood suffrage ; but had been advised by the Grey party to accept a compromise rather than that all should be lost, with a promise of remedial legislation to follow. In the new Parliament, Hume, evolving out of chaos the nucleus of a Radical Party, was not slow to accuse the Grey Ministry of failure to keep its pledges. It was perhaps partially because of the attacks made on him by his whilom allies that Earl Grey resigned in 1834, when his Ministry was reconstituted under the leadership of Viscount Melbourne. The Grey administration, though robbed of much of its power for good by unremitting fluctuations of public opinion, had certainly done more during its ten years of office than had any of its predecessors. In 1833, it brought about the suppression of slavery in the British colonies at a cost of 20 millions ; it abolished the commercial monopoly of the East India Company, and threw the trade open to all traders ; in 1834, it enacted the new Poor Law to cope with the growing pauperism ; in 1835, it restored to the towns by the Municipal Corporations Act the self-government of which they had been deprived ever since the fourteenth century ; it commuted the tithes ; legalised civil marriage at the instance of the Dissenters ; and founded a system of national education in 1834.

* * *

The first Melbourne administration did not last long in consequence of the antagonism of the King, who now espoused the causes of the Tories. It was succeeded briefly by Sir Robert Peel's Cabinet, which was quickly wiped out by a general election, which returned the Whigs under Lord Melbourne to office. One of the foremost acts of this administration was its extension of the educational grants. But the Ministry was somewhat hampered by Lord Palmerston's vigorous foreign policy. He was the principle agent in the Quadruple Alliance with France and the two Peninsular nations, to keep Donna Maria on the throne, of Portugal and Queen Isabella on that of Spain ; and in the war with China in 1839, because that country refused opium a free entry to its dominions — as unpopular as it was unjust. In that year also an Afghan rising and the annihilation of the British in the Khyber Pass somewhat weakened the Government. But here, I have somewhat overshot the mark, for William IV. died in 1837, and was succeeded by Victoria, daughter of Edward Augustus, Duke of Kent— the fifth child and fourth son of George III.— by Victoria, daughter of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg, and widow of the Prince of Leiningen. By the way, George III. and Queen Sophia Charlotte had a numerous family — nine sons and six daughters !

* * *

With the death of William IV., the Kingdom of Hanover passed to the next male heir, Ernest, Duke of Cumberland, and the British people were relieved of a probable source of further embroilment. Lord Melbourne, though highly in favor with the Queen, had steadily lost favor with the people, and was bitterly opposed by the landowners and farmers who desired a maintenance of the Protectionist policy of the country. Therefore, the general election restored to power the Tory Party, who then, for the first time, adopted the name of Conservatives. They came in, headed by Sir Robert Peel, with a majority of 100. It was about this time that Daniel O'Connell was convicted of sedition and liberated on an appeal to the House of Lords; China was granted peace on condition that she threw open some of her ports : General Pollock avenged the Cabul disaster ; and the Indian province of Scinde was annexed. The Anti-Corn-Law League, formed in 1839, had been steadily gaining ground. Its appeals had even weakened the beliefs of Peel, returned to power as a protectionist, and in 1846 the failure of the potato crop in Ireland compelled him to recognize that dear food could not be a cure for poverty or a means of general prosperity. And so, after a time, he introduced and passed into law a Bill for the repeal of the corn duties. But his own party punished him by turning him out of office, and he made way in 1852 for the Whigs under Sir John Russell — a man whose body was said to be too small to cover his intellect, left improperly exposed. The Russell Ministry carried out the work begun by Peel, and a policy of revenue tariff, falsely called freetrade, was eventually established in every department of commercialism. In 1848, there were several continental revolutions — those in France, Prussia, and Italy being the most serious. In the former country, Louis Philippe was forced to abdicate, and a provisional government was formed, then in a few months Louis Napoleon was elected President of France by a plebiscite vote. He, by the way, was at once the nephew and the step-grandson of the great Napoleon, being the putative son of his brother Louis, King of Holland, by Hortense, daughter of the Empress Josephine by Beauharnais, her first husband. About this time, the Smith O'Brien rising in Ireland was suppressed, and the defeat of the Sikhs in India was followed by the annexation of the Punjaub. And now the Chartists began their agitation.

* * *

Chartism, largely a concept from the teachings of Paine, Godwin, Cobbett, Bentham, Cartwright, and others, was brought to consciousness mainly by the grouping together in factories of large bodies of men in similar economic circumstances. It first budded forth as The London Workingmen's Association, which called its first public meeting at the Crown and Anchor, Strand, on Feb. 28, 1837, when a petition — afterwards presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Roebuck— was drawn up by Secretary N. Lovett. The prayer of the petition afterwards became the basis of the document known to history as The People's Charter. At a meeting held in the following May several Ms.P. were present, and it was decided to draw up a Bill for the reform of the House of Lords and the entire system of political representation. The drafting committee was thus composed — Daniel O'Connell, T. A. Roebuck, W. S. Crawford, Dr. Bowring, J. P. Thompson, C. Hindley, W. Lovett, H. Vincent, Hetherington, Leader, Cleave, Watson, and Moore. The Bill then drafted was circulated throughout the Kingdom in 1836, together with the Charter. It proposed to give the suffrage to all sane males of 21 years who were free men at election time, and to all naturalised foreigners of two years' residence in the country ; to divide the country into 300 electoral districts of about 20,000 voters each ; that each district should return only one representative ; that the boundaries be laid out by specially appointed commissioners after each census taking ; and so on. In 1840, a committee appointed by the electors of Westminster, and which was presided over by Charles James Fox and Thomas Brand Hollis, recommended in its report that the electors should demand : — (1) Annual Parliaments; (2) universal suffrage for males; (3) equal voting districts ; (4) no property qualification ; (5) voting by ballot ; (6) payment of members.

* * *

Because of these modest demands the Chartists were styled traitors to the realm, levellers, and disturbers of the peace. These epithets are freely launched to-day at those Australians who have gained five out of the six points of the Charter— the first having been abandoned — and are striving, for fresh reforms based thereon. And most certainly it will be found when these reforms are also won, that they, like the five Charter reforms, have resulted in an enlargement of the public welfare, and in an increased peace and contentment. The Chartists saw clearly what British trade unionism has just begun to recognize— the close connection between things political and economic. Stephens is reported to have said on one occasion: Chartism is a knife and fork question. The Charter for us means decent lodging, good eating and drinking, high wages, and short hours. About 1840, the movement was split into two parties — one proposing to achieve its ends by constitutional methods, and the other talking noisily of physical force. The latter body discredited the movement with the public, and the constitutional Chartists were gradually absorbed by Robert Owen's co-operative movement. The revolutionary party — headed chiefly by Bronterre O'Brien, Ernest Jones, Feargus O'Connor, Frost, and Stephens — was at length overawed by the much stronger physical force arguments advanced by the authorities. Their last public demonstration of any consequence took place at Kensington Common on 10th April, 1848, when 500,000 people were asked to assemble in order that they might march to the House of Commons, and there present through their leaders a petition in favor of the Charter, bearing 6,000,000 signatures. But only 50,000 assembled, and they were overawed by troops, with, whom the Duke of Wellington filled London, and 170,000 special constables whom he had enrolled.

* * *

Prior to this occurrence, in 1847 to be exact, the Radicals in Parliament— usually led by Joseph Hume — coalesced with Disreali's Young England Party and legalised the ten hours working day in the teeth of Lord John Russell. In 1851, the Radicals were supposed to have a majority of the Commons in favor of their proposals to extend the franchise, to introduce vote by ballot, and to wipe out the glaring anomaly which gave two members each to Knaresborough, 230 votes ; Honiton, 287; Tavistock, 336 ; Chippenham, 314 ; Cirencester, 467 ; Devizes, 358 ; Totries, 362 ; Birmingham, 7317 ; Lambeth, 16,284 ; Finsbury, 17,735 ; Marylebone, 18,079 ; and Tower Hamlets, 21,131. But by a clever political trick, Lord John Russell was able further to postpone these reforms for a period of from seventeen to thirty-three years. At a later date, the Radicals, then occasionally known as the Working-Class Party, made other attempts which also failed. For some unknown reason, this party became a mere wing of the Liberal force on the death of Hume.

* * *

In 1852, the Conservatives under Lord Derby displaced the Whigs under Russell, but in a few months the latter body, headed by Lord Aberdeen, climbed back to office by a coalition with the Free Traders. It was about this time that Louis Napoleon, by his infamous coup d'etat of November, 1852, placed himself on the French throne a position he had long sought. Britain took him to her bosom, and in 1854 the silly and purposeless invasion of the Crimea by Britain, France, and Sardinia was entered on. The British troops were so badly prepared to meet the terrible Russian winter— being ill-housed, ill-clad, and but half fed — that it killed them off as a hard frost does flies. The public who had so enthusiastically cheered the departing soldiers objected to murder of such a prosaic character, and Lord Aberdeen was forced early in 1855 to make way for Lord Palmerston, whose Cabinet included the most warlike members of the late administration. The allies were successful at the Alma and at Inkermann,  and when Sebastopol fell in 1856, after a year's siege, the key to the Crimea was won, and Russia consented to the peace of Paris. In 1857 occurred the mutiny of the native troops in Bengal. Delhi was taken, the Europeans at Cawnpore were massacred, and Lucknow was besieged. But the victories of Sir Henry Havelock, Sir Colin Campbell, Sir James Outram, suppressed the revolt within the year, and the government of India was at once transferred from the Company to the Crown — a step which should have been taken in the days of Warren Hastings. The attempt of Orsini to assassinate with a bomb Napoleon the Little in 1858, caused Palmerston to attempt to amend the laws concerning political conspiracy, but Parliament was against panic legislation, and it was defeated. This defeat had a dual effect — it brought Lord Derby again into power, and wrung such threats of reprisals from some hysterical Frenchmen as to cause a recrudescence of the Volunteer movement in Britain, where 150,000 voluntary warriors were soon under arms. The Derby administration did not last long, for the election of 1859 brought Lord Palmerston again into power, and his Ministry endured until his death in 1865. These were years of political inaction so far as reform was concerned, for Palmerston's sole aim apparently was to keep the country out of the great wars which then took place — between France and Austria (1859), with the result that Italy was freed from the tyranny of the latter country ; the American Civil War (1861-5), which ended in the abolition of slavery and the maintenance of the federation; a rising in Poland against the Austrian and Russian usurpers ; and the struggle of Denmark against the aggressions of Austria and Prussia in 1864, which ended in the smaller country's loss of the Schleswig-Holstein provinces. Lord John Russell succeeded Palmerston as Premier, and he successfully followed his policy of neutrality during the war between Prussia and Austria (1866), in which victory rested with Prussia and the needle gun, and of which the result eventually was the Federation, of the German principalities under the headship of Prussia.

(To be continued.)

Worker (Wagga, NSW ), Saturday 15 August 1903, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article145877193

JOSEPH RAYNER STEPHENS

 A CHAMPION OF THE POOR.

HIS WORK AND HIS REWARD.

(By Rev. John Blacket.)

Toilers in South Australia to-day have social, political, and industrial advantages, for which they ought to be deeply grateful. In years gone by other men travailed in spirit for the betterment of the masses, and we to-day reap the benefit of what they did and suffered. It may be an inspiration if we put on record the social and industrial position of the masses 70 years ago, and see what our fathers did and suffered in the interests of social and industrial reform. For these purposes we cannot do better than consider the career of Joseph Rayner Stephens. . . .South Australians will feel all the more interest in this sketch of a great social reformer, because three of the brothers of Mr. Stephens helped to lay the foundations of the province in which we now live. . . These were all able and influential men, sons of the Rev. John Stephens, who was president of the Methodist Conference in England in the year 1827. But Joseph Rayner Stephens was the Saul among his brethren. He was a firebrand of the right sort, scorching social and industrial abuses, and giving greedy employers a warm time.

A Great Man's Early Days.

It was in the famous old town of Edinburgh that Joseph Rayner Stephens was born in the year 1805. A few years later he entered Woodhouse Grove, near Leeds, an academy for the training of Methodist preachers' sons. His father, had had few special educational advantages, and knew, by his own limitations, the advantages of a first-class education. He hoped to send his son Joseph to of university, and out of his scanty income as a Methodist preacher saved money for this purpose. But his son's native independence of character would not allow him to accept it. "He would not accept money for himself to the disadvantage of his brothers and sisters." He became an assistant teacher in an academy at Cottingham, and while thus employed worked hard in the direction of mental improvement. But Joseph Rayner Stephens had set his heart upon the Methodist ministry, for which he became a candidate in the year 1825. After a short term of service in England he was sent to take charge of the Methodist mission in Stockholm, Sweden. Here he made the acquaintance of several eminent men, especially that of Lord Bloomfield, British Ambassador, and Count de Montalembert. After spending, four years in Stockholm he returned to the English work. In 1832 he was stationed at Ashton-under-Lyne, where the crisis of his life occurred, and the whole course of his life was changed.

An Impulsive Philanthropist.

'A movement was set on foot for the disestablishment of the Church of England. Young Stephens entered heartily into it. The Methodist Conference objected, and demanded that he should sever his connection with it. He preferred to send in his resignation as a Methodist minister. Joseph Rayner Stephens was now a free lance; only a position of that kind could meet his peculiar temperament. He was a most impulsive man, impatient of control. The became a social reformer and political preacher. Public sympathy was enlisted on his behalf, and some chapels were built by sympathisers in which he could freely minister. He. took up the cause of the factory workers, dealing especially with the children. In 1834 the condition of the factory workers in England, notably that of the children, was deplorable. There was white slavery in the old land of a most appalling kind. At the basis of this was inventive genius and the lust for gold. Under the old system of industry families worked in their homes. The manufacturing of cotton and woollen goods was done by hand cards, spinning wheels, and the olden loom. The instruments used were rude, and production slow, but the conditions under which the workers toiled were congenial and healthy. There was little risk to body, mind, or morals. But the age of invention came. James Hargreaves invented the Spinning Jenny (so called in honor of his wife), and Arkwright made further improvements. The original spinning jenny could be used in the house of the worker, but the later and larger spinning machines required more power. This led to "the factory system." Buildings were put up along the swiftly moving streams of Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire, and Nottinghamshire. In these factories child labor was more profitable to the owners than the labor of adults. Children were plentiful. Their services could be obtained for about a penny a day. If the local supply of child labor was not sufficient the deficiency could be supplied by importation from other towns, especially from the poor houses. This source of supply was soon discovered, and utilised by the mill-owners. Pauper children, of tender years, were taken by hundreds from the great cities to work in the factories. They came by the waggon load. Houses were built for them near the factories, and in these they were placed under the care of men and matrons. Many of these children were cruelly used. It was said that their beds never got cold. When one lot turned out another lot turned in. Their food was often of the coarsest description. Some worked from 5 o'clock in the morning till 9 o'clock at night, with only half an hour for dinner 16 hours a day. At one mill they were kept on the premises day and night. They dare not be late at their work in the morning. Sometimes they were so worn out and weary that they actually went through their mechanical movements unconsciously, with nothing in their hands.

Pity the Poor Children.

The Sadler Select Committee, appointed by Parliament in 1832, brought some sad experiences to light. One lad told how he lived a good mile from the mill. There were times, when it was painful for him to move, so his brother and sister supported him under each arm, and ran with him to the mill. If any were five minutes late the overlooker would take a strap and beat them, till they were black and blue. The masters of some mills, in their lust for gold, encouraged the overlookers in their brutality. Girls as well as boys were strapped, and even chained. In 1839 the Duke of Sussex called a meeting to consider the dreadful state of things at the London Tavern. He sent for Richard Oastler to speak, and a pitiful story he had to tell. He had seen factory children with back and breast black through cruel treatment at the factory. On a child, living within a mile of his house, he had counted 33 cuts. Lip and eye were also cut. What crime had the child committed? he had labored so long that he had fallen asleep over his work. He told of an angry overlooker, who had seized a sleeping child by the hair, had swung her round, and dashed her on the floor. In doing so he had torn the hair and part of the scalp from her head. Little half-fed stunted children were kept at work 12, 14, and 18 hours without time for meals. They ate what they had to eat while they worked. Children slept as they stood. Overseers kept tanks of cold water near in which they dipped the lads to awaken them. The little ones then had to work all day in their wet clothes The children at times were so sleepy that their fingers were taken off by the machines. The legs of many girls were swollen by long standing, but when any perished from this treatment others took the places of the dead. A father, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, said:— "My little girl died in the night, and what breaks my heart is this. She went to the mill in the morning, but she was not able to do her work. At night when returning home she fell down several times on the road through exhaustion. She reached home with difficulty. She never spoke audibly afterwards, and died during the night." Richard Oastler said "he remembered a poor widow who worshipped at the same church as himself whose children should have gone to the Sunday-school, but they could not; they were too weary from their excessive work. Many a time he had seen this poor woman dressing her children's ankles when they came from work and then sitting them on the bed to feed them. She would give to each child in turn a mouthful of bread and milk, but when she came with a second spoonful to the eldest she would find it asleep with the food unmasticated in its mouth."

" A Good Man's Heart on Fire."

When such industrial conditions existed, when children were tortured and killed that factory owners might gain wealth, there was need for agitators of the stamp of Joseph Rayner Stephens men of powerful speech, passion, and determination. When Mr. Stephens retired from the Methodist ministry he joined Richard Oastler, the friend of the factory children. Oastler was born in Leeds on December 20, 1789. He was the son of a Yorkshire Methodist, at whose home John Wesley sometimes stayed. Richard Oastler was the manager of a large estate, but devoted his life to the cause of the factory workers, more especially the children. In 1890 he was staying with John Wood, a Yorkshire manufacturer. His host said I wonder you have never turned your attention to the factory system."

"Why?" was the response. "I have nothing to do with factories."

Mr. Wood said, "You are enthusiastic against slavery in the West Indies," and then dwelt on the worse than slavery of the factory children. Richard Oastler's sympathies were aroused. He wrote a series of letters to the Leeds "Mercury" on "Slavery in Yorkshire," denouncing the factory system, and pleading for a ten hours' day for all workers under 21 years of age. From 1830 onwards he led the agitation for a ten hours' day. He was a kingly man, of splendid physique, more than 6 ft. in height, and a gifted speaker. He died on August 22, 1861, and a statute to his memory has been erected at Bradford.

The Dawn of Salvation.

Robert Owen (the Socialist) and Sir Robert Peel were the first public men to interest themselves in the condition of the factory children. In 1819 Sir Robert brought in a Bill providing that no child, under nine years of age should be employed in a cotton factory, and that no person under sixteen years of age should be allowed to work more than twelve hours daily, exclusive of meals. The Bill was passed, but was practically a dead letter. In 1825 Sir J. C. Hobhouse and Lord Morpeth introduced a Bill to limit the number of working hours for persons under eighteen years of age to ten hours a day, with provision that no child under nine years of age should be employed. Ultimately the time was extended to twelve hours a day for five days and nine hours on the Saturday. This Bill applied to cotton factories only, and was unsatisfactory.

Michael Thomas Sadler, who effectively dealt with the question, deserves special mention, for he sacrificed his life in the interests of the workers. In 1829 Sadler was elected to Parliament, and at once devoted himself principally to social and industrial reforms. He worked hard in the interests of the poor in Ireland, although a Methodist local preacher, born in England.

He also labored for the betterment of the agricultural population of England. Sadler entered heartily into "The Factory Movement." In 1831 he brought in a Bill for "Regulating the labor of children and of young people in the mills and factories in England." Up to 18 years of age young people were not to be employed for more than ten hours, exclusive of time allowed for meals. Two hours less were to be worked on the Saturday, and no night work was to be done by young people under 21 years of age. In moving the second reading of this Bill Sadler delivered a splendid speech. His labor to secure success for this movement was enormous. He worked night and day, and really sacrificed his life in the cause of the children and other factory workers. He died in 135, several years before the Factory Act was passed, and a statue to his memory, raised by public subscription, adorns the town of Leeds. Sadler's mantle in Parliament fell on Lord Ashley, afterwards known as the Earl of Shaftesbury.

Tributes to Stephens.

Oastler, Stephens, and Sadler did splendid work in agitating for the Bill. George J. Holyoake who was contemporary with Joseph Rayner Stephens), writes:—

"Stephens, who joined Oastler excelled all of them in various knowledge, without which no greater can be of permanent value He had a fine imagination a persistency which nothing could turn aside, and, what was not less important, more enduring physical strength than any of his coadjutors, who either died early, or were enfeebled prematurely by their work." In his book on the " Modern Factory System," R. W. Cooke Taylor (Government Inspector of Factories), says:—"It is painful to have to omit all mention of the names and services of many other workers, and there is one more name that must certainly be saved from such a fate it is that of Joseph Rayner Stephens. He was a man of great physical and intellectual powers and of a vigor and earnestness of purpose that impressed all who met him. To a vehement style of oratory he added a quite singular face and felicity of diction, and of apt and spirited illustration. Stephens lived long enough to see the complete triumph of his cause. He died in 1879, the year in which the factory and Workshop Consolidation Act came into force."

The Poor Law Amendment Bill.

The passing of the Poor Law Amendment Bill drove Joseph Rayner Stephens almost to desperation, and brought him into conflict with the British Government. Prior to this change in the Poor Law the principle on which charity was administered dated from the time of Queen Elizabeth. The parish was held responsible for ministering to the wants of the poor. They lived in their own homes, and were supported out of the local rates. This mode of administering relief opened the door to abuse. The laborers sometimes would not go out of a parish to seek work, so that often there was an excess of laborers. The supply was greater than the demand, and the idle were supported by the parish pay. The duty was thus cast on the parish to give relief, and to furnish employment, led to indolence, improvidence, and want of energy on the part of some laborers, and to abuses on the part of the ratepayers and local authorities. People sought help for whom the Poor Law was not really intended, and the burden of pauperism became intolerable. Some of the parishes collapsed under the strain. In 1832 a Commission was appointed to enquire into the whole question. It suggested that parish relief should cease, and that the needy should be provided for in well-regulated workhouses as a guarantee against imposition. It was thought that the laborer would exhaust every possible means of obtaining work rather than enter the Poor House. A central board was to be created to manage all affairs connected with the Poor Laws. The poor, in the workhouses, were to be divided into four classes the aged and really impotent; able-bodied males; able-bodied females; and children. These were to live in separate apartments. Where practicable there was to be a union of parishes to save multiplication of work-houses. Hence the name "union." This legislation, beneficial in its effect upon the idle and improvident, pressed heavily upon the old and the worthy poor. It led to the breaking up of homes and families, to the separation of husbands, wives, and children. There was much harshness and cruelty in its administration. Not only were there the injustice and sorrow of separation, but communication was not allowed except under rigorous regulations. If members of families wished to converse they were only allowed to do so briefly, through an iron gate, in the presence of a guardian. It was "iron" legislation. No wonder Joseph Rayner Stephens' sympathetic and fiery soul revolted against it. This new Poor Law almost maddened Stephens, brought him into collision with the authorities, and landed him in gaol. Speaking of the opposition raised, the "Cambridge Modern History" says:—The crusade was led by Stephens, who thrilled vast crowds by his passionate oratory, and exhorted them to demand by force the repeal of the hated law, which was only passed for five years."

The Government Take Action.

When Stephens advised the people to arm, the Government took action. He was walking with a friend from Ashton to Manchester. Two policemen approached him. Mr. Stephens, said they "we are two officers from Bow-street, and have a warrant authorising your arrest.". . . . Then, calling for pen and ink, he wrote a letter to his wife, and begged the officers to proceed in the discharge of their duty. He was taken first to the York Hotel, Manchester, and thence to Worsley, accompanied by a troop of soldiers. He was reconveyed to Manchester, tried, and released, bail being fixed at £250. Mr. Stephens spent one night in a cell, and on a felon's bed. When he was released a crowd of friends waited to welcome him, but, avoiding all ostentation, he entered a hackney coach and drove away.

A Wave of Public Sympathy.

Mr. Stephens was liberated on bail. Sunday was near. How would he spend it? in the same way in which he had spent the Sabbath for many years—in preaching the Gospel? In the morning he occupied his own pulpit at Staley Bridge, and preached to a crowded congregation, making no reference to his arrest. In the evening he proceeded to Ashton to fulfil another appointment. He was met by a messenger, who told him that the church was full to overflowing, and that the trustees, alarmed for the safety of the church and congregation, had asked them to retire to the market-place. About ten thousand persons were present. Here the service was held under very impressive circumstances. The stillness of the night, the pale light of the moon, and the subdued feeling of the vast congregation, had a telling influence. The subject of his discourse was the authority of God's Word in all matters of faith and practice, and the supremacy of the Divine will. He represented himself as a man of one book. On the Word of God he took his stand. By that Word actions must be weighed. To that standard all must be brought, and no earthly power could, of right, set up any authority against it. The preacher denounced God's curse on the people if they ever allowed the Poor Law to be established among them.

Joseph Rayner Stephens had to appear before the court at Manchester a second time. He had expressed the desire that there should be no popular demonstration in his favor. The people assembled in crowds, but the proceedings were orderly. The case was stated, and Stephens made his defence. The press described the conduct of his case as admirable. During the whole of his concluding speech, which was in itself a pattern of self-possession, good judgment, and eloquence, a pin might have been heard to fall. He was committed to Liverpool, to take his trial at the next assizes. The bail required was—Mr. Stephens himself in a bond of £1,000, and two other securities of £500 each.

The Sentence of the Court.

The great day for Joseph Rayner Stephens came, a day that might well unnerve the strongest man. He had to face judge and jury, with all their pomp and pageantry, and to stand his trial for sedition. It was Monday, August 15, 1839. The court was thronged. The Government spared no expense in trying to secure the condemnation of Mr. Stephens. For the prosecution three lawyers were engaged, and there was a special jury. Mr. Stephens conducted his own case, but was accompanied by a Manchester solicitor.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Campbell) opened the case. The witnesses were called. Then Mr. Stephens was asked to make his defence. A noble effort it proved to be. "Gentlemen," he said in his peroration, "it is because five years ago I took up the question of the circumstances and condition of the factory workers, thus forced upon my attention, and the condition of the poor as affected by the Poor Law Amendment Act, that I stand before you to-day; and it is only in connection with those two questions that I have had anything to do in public. I am guiltless of everything else, and, whatever your verdict may be, I have used no talents, no eloquence. I have not attempted to excite your passions, to arouse your feelings, or to awaken your sympathies on my behalf. If I had any favor to ask, I should have asked the postponement of this trial. If I had not been guiltless, I would have gone away until the time of next assizes—until there was something like calmness and tranquillity in the country. Put all these things together— look at them singly—and let the concentrated impression have weight upon your unprejudiced judgments, upon your loyal principles, upon your Christian emotions, as Englishmen and Christians, as men who, with myself, fear God and honor the Queen and all that are in authority under her and over us. In your own consciences, before God, in the face of this country and of this court, say whether I am guilty of this charge."

The speech occupied five and a half hours. The judge was deeply impressed, and in summing up he said, "The defendant has pleaded his case in very powerful language, with great talent and ability, and with a fluency and power of language which I have seldom known equalled." The jury brought in a verdict of guilty. The sentence was that Mr. Stephens should be imprisoned for eighteen months, and, at the expiration of that term, should find sureties, himself in £500 and two others in £250 to keep the peace for the space of five years. It is evident the judge desired to make an example of Mr. Stephens. The Chartists (though the defendant did not belong to them) were very busy, and were giving the Government much trouble.

Lives to see the Fruits of Victory.

After Joseph Rayner Stephens had been released from prison he was presented with a public testimonial of the regard in which he was held. He still preached and labored in the interests of social and industrial reform. His eventful, stormy, and useful life came to a close on February 15, 1879. He was buried in Duckinfield Parish Churchyard, a vast concourse of people following his body to the grave. He lived to see the accomplishment of many of the objects for which he fought, labored, and suffered. He saw the abolition of child labor, and a Ten Hours Factory Bill, giving relief to 360,000 people. He also saw improvements in the Poor Law Amendment Bill. It took about 30 years to pass the Factory Act, and it has taken the public about 70 years to see the injustice of the poorhouse system that Joseph Rayner Stephens so fiercely denounced. Society has come round to his way of thinking, and pensions are taking the place of what the masses in Joseph Rayner Stephen's day called "Bastilles."



Advertiser (Adelaide, SA ) 1910, http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article5216785

LORD GLENELG.

 ONE by one the politicians of the last generation are disappearing from the scene. Last year witnessed the departure of the veteran, Lord Palmerston, rich with the honours of more than half a century of active statesmanship, by this mail we learn that almost the last of his old colleagues in official life who, though less known to the present generation, was hardly less honoured than his old contemporary in that which preceded it. Charles, Lord Glenelg, has, at an age protracted beyond the usual span of human life, been at length gathered to his fathers. In the rapid whirl of time, the noble lord has, in the calm serenity of his old age, ceased to exist but as an honoured relic of the past ; but as in the course of his official career as a Minister of State he has a place in Australian history, a brief notice of his public life may not be uninteresting to Australian readers.

Lord Glenelg, or, to adopt the older and more familiar designation, Charles Grant, was born at Kidderpore, in Bengal, in the year 1779. His father, Mr Charles Grant, was no less distinguished in social life than his son, the subject of the present memoir, was in political life, and he occupies a conspicuous niche in that Walhalla of worthies recorded by Sir James Stephen in his well known Essays on Ecclesiastical Biography as the "Clapham Sect." It is a remarkable fact in connection with the lives of the father and the son, that each held in his day the virtual government of India; the father in the last century, as Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company, the son in the present century, under a better system of government, as a Minister of the Crown. The son inherited the father's philanthropic spirit, and when the power fell into his hands in after life took advantage of the occasion to carry out the benevolent views of his parent for the amelioration of the condition of the coloured population of British India.

Lord Glenelg came to England in early life. He was educated at the University of Cambridge, where, in the year 1801, he took some of the highest academical honours then attainable. He was subsequently called to the Bar, but never practised, having, in the year of his call, 1807, been elected a member of the House of Commons, and he thenceforward sacrificed forensic for political honours. In 1813 Lord Liverpool, whom history records as having had a tenure of office that some of our colonial prime ministers might envy, appointed him a Lord of his Treasury, and this position he held until 1819, when the same perennial Prime Minister made him Chief Secretary for Ireland. In 1823, he was appointed to the office of Vice President of the Board of Trade, which he held until 1827, when, on the accession of Mr. Canning to office, he accepted the office of President, with a seat in the Cabinet. Upon the disruption of Mr Canning's Ministry by the lamented death of that memorable man, Mr Grant ceased to hold office until 1836 when, after the interregnum of the Duke of Wellington's Administration which did not believe in reform and popular progress, and had to be convinced of its mistake, he took office under Earl Grey as President of the Board of Control. This office he held until 1831, when Lord Grey's Ministry succumbed to inevitable destiny, and Mr Grant in the following year, under the Administration of Lord Melbourne, accepted the post of Secretary of State for the Colonies. This office he held until 1839, when he may be said finally to have retired from political life. Up to the time of his becoming a member of Lord Melbourne's Ministry, the subject of our notice had been a member of the House of Commons, but in that year he accepted the peerage which he has so well and so eminently adorned.

The useful portion of Lord Glenelg's political life began in 1830, when he was enabled, like his colleague and contemporary, Lord Palmerston, to give free vent to his political prepossessions in favour of freedom and progress. His Lordship was never a Tory, any more than was Lord Palmerston, though, like the latter, he held office so long under a Tory Administration. But party politics, in the last years of the reign of George the Forth especially, were really the worn-out prejudices which Captain Gronow in his amusing reminiscences of social life of the period has recently disinterred. Toryism was, in those days, respectability; and the chill of respectability cooled the ardour of politicians who were well to do in the world, and who, like the Mr Grant of that day, merely bided their time. In 1833 Lord Glenelg, when President of the Board of Control, and freed from the trammels of official subordination, carried through Parliament a measure which not only freed the British consumer from the infliction of a capacious monopoly, but, better still, extended for the first time to the natives of British India the blessings of freedom and civilisation. In his subsequent career of Secretary of State for the Colonies, it was reserved for his lordship as to the West Indian colonies, by his clearsightedness in adopting a bold and simple remedy, to relieve them from the commercial embarrassment of a depreciated currency, and, as to the colony in which we are most interested, by the benignant and benevolent exercise of his authority, which in those times of colonial government was paramount, to relieve it from the curse of convictism, and to make it, what it is now, a British community.

After his retirement from official life Lord Glenelg took no active part in party politics. His sympathies were always in favour of progress, but he preferred to the turbulence of political the amenities of social life as he enjoyed them— quiet social intercourse, and unbounded intellectual gratification. His intellectual attainments were of a very high order, and among his poetical contributions to our devotional literature may be mentioned two hymns, well known to and in use by many denominations of Christians, " When gathering clouds around I view ;" and, " Saviour, when in dust to thee," with the refrain " Hear our solemn Litany. "

Lord Glenelg was never married, and his title, therefore, becomes extinct. Of his family, his brother, Sir Robert Grant, was, during a great portion of Lord Glenelg's career, also a member of the House of Commons and was in 1832 elected member for the Radical borough of Finsbury, after the passing of the Reform Bill, notwithstanding that he had been a member of Parliament at the time that Lord Castlereagh's well known "Six Acts" were passed. Sir Robert was afterward, for some years, Governor of Madras. Of Lord Glenelg's sisters, one, we believe, married Mr March Phillips, well known to lawyers as the author of a valuable treatise on the law of evidence and another was married to Mr Patrick Grant, who was for some time a member of the Legislative Council of this colony.

Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Friday 27 July 1866, page 2