LONDON TABLE TALK.

Evening Star, Issue 9739, 22 June 1895, Page 2 (Supplement)

LONDON TABLE TALK.

[From Our Special Correspondent.] London, May 3. In important criminal trials it occasionally happens that the views of the public—.formed ou necessarily superficial newspaper reports—and the "views of the jury and those in court—formed on evidence and the demeanor of the witnesses—differ materially. This was so in the Wilde trial, concluded on Wednesday. Whilst the public anticipated with confidence a conviction, all who had heard the case through looked hopefully for an'acquittal. In the end, as you know, the jury disagreed. 1 append a brief resume of the hearing, and have only to addlhat in summing up the judge took the line which you will see I expected—viz., he dismissed the tainted testimony of thegangof blackmailers, and directed the jury to consider chiefly young Shelley’s evidence and that of the servants at the Savoy Hotel. The demeanor of Shelley in the witness box was impressively dwelt on ; also his letters, which, it seems, contradict many statements he made. Mr Justice Charles evidently doubted whether he was quite sane and might not be subject to delusions. Nor did the Savoy evidence appear irresistible to his lordship. Altogether, he summed up strongly in favor of both the accused. The jury were seven to five. MiGill promptly slated that the case would be retried next session. THE FIRST TRIAL. The trial of Oscar Wilde and Taylor was merely a repetition, in its earlier stages, of what occurred at the Police Court, with edifying additions in the shape of crossexamination. The latter, in the cases of Parker, Wood, and Atkins, revealed blackguardism unspeakable, indescribable. These mere lads stood forth self-confessed blackmailers or “ bouncers ” —criminals for whom Michael Davitt, in hia prison reminiscences, says even the most hardened gaol-birds feol and express ineffable contempt. Yet they themselves seemed to be incapable of understanding their own vileness. The detective who had them in charge says they were as ingenuously excited with regard to playing a part in the Wilde tragedy as boys are in hunting down a burglar. “ Shall Ibe called again ? Will he ask me any more? Who was the old buffer in the wig beside the judge ? Didn’t Oscar look down?” inquired Parker excitedly, and without a touch of shame or embarrassment. Wood astounded the Court by boldly confessing that bis share of the blackmailing incident referred to by Parker was £175. Atkins, the fat lad whom Oscar treated to a trip to Paris, and who deposed to having his hair curled at a French barber’s in consequence of Mr Wilde’s orders, denied ever having “demanded money with menaces.” The appearance of the policeman who laid the charge had, however, the effect of refreshing his memory. An interesting story then leaked out. Ou the 10th of June, 1891, Atkins, who was then living with a ruffian named Burton, who combined welshing and cheating at cards with “ bouncing,” went to the Alhambra. They there met a stranger, whose name did not transpire, and took him home tvith them for a quiet game of cards. The stranger got drunk or else had been slightly drugged. Result, a claim for blackmail. But' the stranger was not the man they took him for. He made a tremendous row. ” The landlady sent for the police, and the three men were hailed to Rochester row station. There Burton and Atkins were charged with demanding money with menaces, but the stranger declined to prosecute, and the precious pair were released. Sir Edward Clarke finished off Atkins by reminding him that two hours previously he had denied on oath ever having been in custody at Rochester row or having been charged with “bouncing.” “What made you tell those lies ? ” he asked. Atkius, abashed and scarlet, hut still with a gleam of native impudence, replied: “I failed-to remember it.” “ Leave the court,” said the judge very sternly, pointing to the door with his pen.

All this did Oscargood. On Saturday night at the clubs one heard but a single opinion. Unless the case were proved outside the evidence of Atkins, Parker, and Wood, there must be an acquittal. No man would be safe if the statements of such swine were accepted. Edward Shelley, the publisher’s clerk, was, however, a harder nut than the “bouncers” for Sir Edward Clarke to crack, and this.he evidently felt. The lad is vain and weak, but far from coarse or naturally immoral. The story’ he told of Mr Wilde’s first noticing him, of his subtle flattery, of the dinner at the Albemarle, of the brilliant talk of books and men, and of his horror at what followed rang painfully true. “But,” said Sir Edward Clarke remorselessly, “ if you were so shocked, why did you go back to the Albemarle next evening?” Shelley explained that he thought Mr Wilde, like himself, had taken too much wine, and he believed lie was sorry afterwards for what occurred. Pressed further, the lad, with scarlet cheeks and lowered eyelids, could only suppose he was “a young fool.” The situation was summed up in the sentence: “ He was Oscar Wilde and I was a publisher’s clerk.” Letters were produced addressed by Shelley to Wilde in which the lad praised Oscar’s poems and plays in ecstatic terms. Later came epistles written in extravagant language, accusing Wilde in one breath of being his ruin, in another of being his dearest friend, in a third asking him for money, in a fourth apologising, as he was not quite right in his mind at times. On this last phrase conn, sel fastened. “ Was it true ?” Shelley shot a glance at his former friend and hesitated. Should he sacrifice himself for the man in the dock ? Wilde bad ruined him in a way, but he had also been very kind to him. Few knew the many sides of this erring but talented creature better than he. “Yes,” he said, “I seem to lose my head at times.” In a fit of this kind he had assaulted his own father, to whom he was' much attached. Daring the period following his discharge from Matthews’s he was on many occasions hardly responsible for his actions. With this avowal Sir Edward Clarke was content. Not si, however the Crown. Shelley had to confess in re-examination that he was quite himself when visiting Wilde at the Albemarle. Upon the lad leaving the box a general ■opinion was expressed that Shelley’s was the most damaging evidence extant against the accused. By this time the line of defence to be adopted was tolerably apparent. The witnesses all agreed that there had never been the faintest secrecy in Oscar’s relations with them. He greeted the lads in the street, received them at public resorts, made no secret” of his dinner parties for them. Were the jury sure it wasn’t all part of Oscar’s Hellenism-run-mad pose ? Monday was taken up entirely with the reading over to the jury of Oscar’s famous cross-examination in the Qaeonsherry case. ?iIE DEFENCE On Tuesday, to simplify matters and enable the prisoners, if so disposed, to give evidence on their own behalf, the Crown withdrew the charges of conspiracy. Sir Edward Clarke, in opening his case, remarked he did not think i.t quite fair of Mr Gill to have insisted upon reading Wilde’s cross-examination upon his books and writings. It was not fair to judge a mao even by his books, hut the prosecution had gone further than that, and had sought to ; udge Wilde by books w’hich he did not write and by an article which he had repu. dialed as ’horrible and disgusting. lie pointed out that the latest date at which misconduct was charged against Wilde was eighteen months ago, and that it was his own act in prosecuting Lord Queensberry that brought the matter before the public. He (Sir E. Clarke), with the counsel acting with him, was responsible for the advice given to Mr Wilde in the Queensbcrry case, and it was partly owing to that fact that he was there again on Wilde s behalf to n>eet the accusation which could not properly be tried then. Men charged with offences alleged against Mr Wilde shrunk from investigation, and he submitted that the fact of Wilde’s taking the initiative of a public trial was evidence of his innocence. W<lde was then called. He rose with alacrity from his seat in the dock, walked erectly to the witness-box, and, leaping across the rail in t ha same easy attitude that he assumed when be w£3 examined by Mr Carson in the previous case, quietly answered the questions addressed to him by Sir Edward Clarke, which in the first place

dealt with his earlier career. In 1884 •he married Miss Lloyd, and from that time to the present ho had lived with his wife at 16 Tite street, Chelsea. He also occupied rooms in St. James’s place, which he took for the purposes of his work, it being out of the question to get quietude at his own house when his two young sons were at home. He had heard the evidence in this case against himself, and asserted that there was no truth in any one of the allegations. Mr Gill began his cross-examination with some questions relating to Lord Alfred Douglas’s poems which appeared in the ‘ Chameleon,’ which the witness at the former trial had described as beautiful poems. It was not, he said in explanation of the answers he then gave, for him to explain anyone else’s work, but the explanation given him by the author was that the word “shame” in one of the sonnets was uspd in the sense of modesty, to feel shame or not to feel shame. The meaning of the words in the other sonnet, * I am the love that dare not speak its name,’ was quite clear. It was said the great love between an elder and a younger man as between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the- basis of his philosophy, such as was to be found in the sonnets of .Shakespeare and Michael Angelo, that deep spiritual affection that was as pure as it was perfect, and that pervaded great works of art like those of Michael Angelo and Shakespeare. It was beautiful, it was pure, it was noble, it was intellectual this love of an elder man with his experience of life and a younger with all the joy and hope of life before him.—(Applause and hisses in the gallery.) Witness was next examined as to the two famous letters from himself to Lord Alfred Douglas, in which the expressions “ your slim gilt soul ” and “the rose leaf lips” appeared. One of these, he said, was a-sort of prose sonnet in answer to one he had received from Lord Alfred Douglas. There was nothing in either letter of which he was the least ashamed. In regard to the lads Charles Parker, Alf Woojd, Atkins, and Shelley, he said their evidence as to his association with them, the dinners and presents he gave them, was mainly true, but there was not a syllable of truth in that part of their evidence which alleged improper behaviour. He did not think there was anything extraordinary about Taylor’s rooms. They were Bohemian, that was all. Alfred Taylor next went into the box. He said he was thirty-three years of age, and was educated at Marlborough. When he was twenty-one he came into £45,000. In a few years he ran through it, and at about the time he went to Chapel street he was made a bankrupt. The charges against him of misconduct were entirely unfounded. Sir E. Clarke addressed the jury in defence of Wilde. He carefully analysed the evidence, and submitted that they could not possibly find Wilde guilty on the statement of those tainted witnesses. He pointed out that Wilde had himself produced one of the letters which had been made so much of by the prosecution, and said that he had made no secret of his visiting Taylor’s rooms and giving dinners to some of the witnesses. Wilde was an extraordinary man, and he had written letters which might seem highflown, exaggerated, absurd if they liked, but he was not afraid or ashamed to produce those letters. The witnesses Charles Parker, Alfred Wood, and Atkins had been proved to have been guilty of blackmailing, and upon their uncorroborated evidence surely the jury would not convict the prisoner on such terrible charges. “ Fix your minds,” concluded Sir Edward Clarke, “ firm'y on the tests that ought to be applied to the evidence before you can condemn a fellowman on a charge like this. Then I trust that the result of your deliberations will be to gratify those thousand hopes that are waiting upon your verdict. I trust that that verdict will clear from this fearful imputation one of the most accomplished and renowned men of letters of to-day.” “a just cause and impediment.”

The harmony of the hymeneal ceremony binding Mr Theodore Brinckmau (sou of Sir Theo. Brinckmau) to Miss Marie Linton (Lord Aylesford’s step-daughter), at St. Mark’s, North Dudley street, on Saturday afternoon, was disturbed by a highly sensational incident. It seems that, despite the choral service, the eight bridesmaids, and the large assemblage of friends (all unusual at a second marriage), Mr Brinckmau had previously essayed the holy estate. Moreover, his initial experience had closed not with his wife’s death, but with a divorce suit. His canonical wife, in short, is still very much alive, and in the terms of the fifth rubric this fact forms “a just cause and impediment ” to his wedding another. The law of the land, however (as distinguished from church law and Bible precept), permits a divorced man to wed again, and certain Broad Church parsons now make no bones about celebrating such unions. With High Church folk, however, the position is very different; They consider divorce-marriages illegal—forbidden alike by Cod, by Christ, and by church usage from time immemorial; and latterly the Church Union has resolved to prevent, if possible, clergymen solemnising them. So on Saturday, when Dr Ker Grey asked “Is there any just cause or impediment,” etc., a H'gh Church clergyman, Father Black, rose in the gallery, and, supported by the Duke of Newcastle and the Rev. Henry Washington, addressed the priest in a loud voice, saying “ I, William Black, clerk in holy orders, residing at 6 Gray’s Inn Square, do hereby allege an impediment in the terms of the fifth rubric in the office for the solemnisation of holy matrimony in regard to the ceremony now proceeding.” All eyes were turned towards the interrupter, and a scene of great excitement followed. Both parlies at the altar faced round to the gallery, and the officiating priest advanced and, holding up his right hand, exclaimed : “ Sir, I am here by the mandate of the bishop, and refuse to hear a word.” He at once resumed the service. Thereupon the interruption was continued from the gallery, amid cries of “Sit down, Father Black,” “Shame,” and loud hissing. A number of police were in in attendance inside the church, but made no effort to stop Father Black, who, reading from a paper in his hand, said : “ I allege, and am prepared to prove, that one of the two parties has his canonical wife living, and that therefore his marriage with another'person is contrary to the law' of God and to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England ; and I call upon the clergyman now officiating to surcease as required by the rubric from proceeding with the present ceremony until my allegation be inquired into and determined by lawful authority; and I hereby make myself responsible for all damages, charges, and costs, in the terms of the rubric, in regard to this my protest, of which I tender a copy with my signature annexed.” The latter portion of the statement was made amid a storm of hissing and disorder. Father Black then rose from his seat, and, accompanied by the Duke of Newcastle and the Rev, Henry Washington, vic-sr of St, Saviour’s, Pimlico, who were seated on each side of him, left the phurch. There was a rush for the doors on the part of a large number of the congregation, and Father Black was hailed with cries of “ Coward,” “Sneak,” and “Shame.” .MAHATMAS AT ST. .7 AMES’S HAM,, “ We’ve had plenty of eloquence, but not a shred of evidence or argument,” cried a rude person to whom the chairman at St. James’s Hall refused to listen last Saturday evening. Mrs Besaut had been talking to us for an hour and a-half about Mahatmas. At least she said she was. talking about Mahatmas. If one of those interesting Thibetan sages had happened to be supporting himself on the orange peel and pepper-mint-laden air above us I could imagine him saying from time to time. “But, my precious Annie, where do I come in ? “ Mrs Besant’s oratory was glorified, sumptuous, superb. When she talked of ideals, and besought us to make ours of the purest, highest kind, one foresaw the magnificent minister of the Gospel she will no doubt presently become, She touched every heart not once but twepty times. If the faith she preached had possessed a grain of backbone we should all have left the hall Mahatmas —I beg pardon, I mean Theosophists. But the arguments. Oh, dear! oh, dear! Wo are to believe in Mahatmas, if you please, because Madame Blavatsky and Mr Sinnett and numerous other persons of repute—w’ho cannot all be put down as fools or rogues believe in them, Madame Blavatsky was a comparatively uninstrscjted woman, yet she poured forth wisdom and knowledge of the highest, subtlest kind in torrents, Mrs Bcsant, her-

self, wrote that great book ‘The Voice of Silence’ at H.P.B,’s dictation. Where did the latter get the material from ? Well, if Mrs Besant wants to know where I think ‘The Voice of Silence’came from I reply— Mrs Beaant. Unless H.P.B.’s biographers do her woful injustice she was a great hand at picking the brains of her associates, and leading them to believe'the outcome was her own. Moreover, she was not an uninstructed, but a marvellously erudite and highly-cultured woman. M. Solovoff tells us, in that terrible expose (more than once referred to in these columns), ‘ A Modern High Priestess of Isis,’ that if the good lady would but have run straight she might have done great things. Theosophy 'is killing Mrs Besant. An inward fire burns her up, and its name is not faith, buo doubt. Sinnett and Co. can play at “hanky-panky” without its damaging their rest or their digestions. But to keep Annie Besaut’s belief in the occult, robust visions and so ou are necessary. Let us pray that this clever woman may not be led to adopt the drugs as well as the diet and dress of India. Just now, I feel confident, what she requires far more than Mahatmas are meat meals, It was all very well for H.P.B. to exist on apricots and cream in public. The good lady, as we know, had her ham and eggs behind the scenes. Mrs Besant, however, condescends to no such alleviations. She lives on rice and Mahatmas, and the latter are not sustaining. Mr A. P. Sinnett occupied the chair at Sfc. James’s Hall, hut he would allow no one save himself and Mrs Besant to talk. “Alahatmas,” said he, “are beyond argument.” Quite so. A WOMAN HATER. As a general rule the self-confessed woman hater gets led to the altar sooner or later, but one has just pdssed away in Vienna whose hatred of the sex lasted him a lifetime. He was wealthy, this confirmed misogynist, and had many attempts made upon his liberty. But he was altogether too vigilant. At the theatre he always booked three seats and sab in the middle one. When travelling he kept by him a pipe as foul that even hardened men choked at its fumes. In his will the Vienna woman hater directs his executors to bury him where there is no woman interred right or left, and should this not be practicable he enjoins them to buy three graves, and to bury him in the middle one. His executors found among the deceased’s papers a large bundle labelled “Family attempts to put me under the yoke of matrimony.” In this there were sixty-two letters, dated from 1845 to 1894, showing that his relatives had left no stone unturned to find him a suitable mate. ONCE TOO OFTEN. At the Clerkenwell session the other day an unsympathetic magistrate dosed (for five long years) a strange career of petty crime. Percy Hamilton was the son of a solicitor of good standing, but he found out the way to live at other people’s expense without troubling his brains with law bock?. His modus operand! was simple, though somewhat risky. He used to attend the police courts, and carefully took note of all the cases committed to prison. Then, having ascertained who the friends of the prisoners were, he would call upon them, and, representing himself as Warder So-and-so from Holloway or Peutonviile, obtain money and goods which, he would inform the unsuspecting and sorrowing friends, the prisoners had need of. In several instances these frauds were discovered, and Hamilton hauled before the beak. The moment he was in the dock, however, Hamilton would simulate insanity to such perfection as to deceive the police medicos, and the magistrates would at once send him to an asylum. Another rapid change would then take place. The prisoner would recover in a few days, and bciug discharged at once pursued his old game. This happened several limes, but the Clerkenwell magistrate’s memory happened to be rather good, so Hamilton played his trick in vain, and will spend the next five years at Holloway.

A PERFECT TELEPHONE. They do some things excellently well across the Channel. Here in Old England five minutes at the telephone is generally calculated to put the most angelic business man into a fearful temper for the rest of the day. And when you meet a boy in the street looking prematurely old and who walks straight past a downfallen cabhorse you may accept him for an office boy in a telephone ridden establishment. But on the Continent the telephone is a different thing—a boon and a blessing, not a torture. You can sit comfortably in a private box in Baris and yarn with a friend in Brussels for half an hour without ever having to enjoin him to “Speak up” or “Say that again, please.” So perfect indeed is this ParisBrussels telephone that the French Press constantly use it for the purpose of interviewing political and other celebrities, who, for economy’s sake and other considerations, reside in Brussels instead of the French capital. These interviews differ in no essential from those conducted m a vis, and one which recently came under my notice gives eloquent testimony to the perfection of the inter-city communication. The victim was a politician living pro tem. in Brussels. His questioner asked : “ What do yon intend to do ?” and the account continues thus : “‘Why, I shall simply watch events,’ he replied, rubbing his hands.” The good people of Paris ought to be proud of that telephone. Fancy being able to hear a man rubbing his hands at a distance of a few hundred miles ! LITERARY NOTES. The lady who has attained such popularity of late years in middle-class Scotland as Annie S. Swan is now the wife of Dr Burnett-Smith, a London medico. She was brought up in Midlothian, about twelve miles from Edinburgh, and most of her youthful acquaintances and surroundings figure in her books. Michael Maitland, in ‘ Maitland of Laurieston,’ is admittedly her father, and her mother was lovingly limned as the mistress of Lintlaw in ‘Carlowrie.’ Miss Swan’s literary career commenced very unluckily. She fell into the hands of the Charing Cross Publishing Company a notorious firm, whose methods of preying on the budding author wore ultimately exposed in ‘ Truth.’ They took her story ‘ Ups and Downs,’ on the half-profits system, with the result that her grim and rather tightfisted parent had to pay up £45. Naturally, he thereafter viewed his daughter’s literary labors with disfavor, and advised her to devote her energies wholly to domestic matters. Fortunately the girl’s second effort, the popular ‘ Aldersyde,’ was brought out by reputable people, and its instant success assure! her future. Miss Swan, or rather Mrs Burnett-Smith, has now been writing seventeen years, yet is still quite a young woman. ‘Sheila’ she thinks her best book. It was written in the Highlands, and is perfectly trueto life. Over 1 The Lose Ideal’ the author expended infinite pains, but it had not a quarter of the success of ‘Homespun,’ a short story knocked off during a summer holiday, of which 50,C00 copies have been sold. In an interview with Mrs Hodgson Burnett in the iffay ‘ Young Woman ’ the genesis of ‘ Little Lord Fauntleroy ’ is related in rather fuller detail than we have seen it before. It seems that whilst Mrs Burnett was recovering from an illness her son Vivian’s quaint childish chatter with Mammy Prissy, the household’s black cook, and other servants and visitors amused her even more than usual. She took to musing' how he would comport himself in the society of a Conservative English nobleman. Then she thought: I’ll write a story about him. I’ll put him in quite a new world, and see what he’ll do. How, she reasoned, shall I bring a small American boy into close relationship withau English nobleman—irascible, Conservative, disagreeable? He must live with him, talk to him, show him his small, unconscious, republican mind. Then came the idea of a son of a younger son separated from his father because he had married a poor American beauty. The intermediate heirs must die out and the boy of the mtmlllunse come into the title. Then Mrs Burnett decided that Vivian should be he— Vivian with his curls, and his eyes, and his friendly little soul.' He should be Little Lord Soniejthiug-or-aaother, and, finally,, it was Little Lord Fauntjoroy. An old black aunty’s estimate of the young original deserves quotation. “ Dat chile,” she said, “ he sullenly ain’t like nq other chile. ’Tain’t jest that he’s smart, smart as they make ’em. It’s sump’u else. An’ he’s the fren’licst little human I ever seed—he suttenlyis.” Mrs Burnett wrote ‘ Little Lord Pauntle-

Roy ’ in six weeks. . Ifc took the civilised world by storm, remaining to this day the most popular book of its school, save perhaps ‘ Little Women.’

Mr Viyian Burnett, now a young man of eighteen, abHarvard,;has, as the original of thb little lord, endured! ionising to an unendurable extent. In England such a position would have been trying j in America it amounts almost. to persecution. People write to him for his autograph, pester him with idiotic questions, and introduce him to their friends as Lord Fauntlerby. No wonder the poor boy groans at the very mention of his prototype. Lady Gwendolen Cecil, whose ghost story, in a recent number of ‘ Blackwood ’ excited approving comment, is the; author of the clever but grim satire entitled ‘The Curse of Intelh cb ’ recently published by the Edinburgh firm. Lord Salisbury’s youngest daughter has evidently inherited her fall share of the family brains. All the worst faults as well as, the brassy brilliance of the ‘National Observer’.under W. E. Henley are now to be found in the ‘ New Review.’ Fortunately, however, we are only called upon to read the latter once a month. In the April number, you may remember, a superior young man disposed to his own satisfaction of lan Maclaren and S. R. 'Crockett. In the May issue Mr Vernon Blackburn bludgeons William Watson, John Davidson, R. Le Gallienne, Norman Gale, and others. For no contemporary minor poet has he, indeed, a word of sincere praise save Mr Francis Thompson, an obscure Bodley Head bardlet, whom few outside a tiny ring of specialists know anything about. Mr Blackburn’s style is “ fine and large.” One can’t say a word against his manner. But his matter consists of destructive hypercriticism and cheap sneers. To find too much fault with Davidson and Watson would be to give himself away. Yet ’tis plain that in neither can his blind eyes see virtue. Le Gallienne, Mr Blackburn flatters himself, he can “dispose of in three lines.” Well, I do not myself think great things of this writer’s verse. But it’s honest work that thousands understand and enjoy. Can as much, I wonder, be said of the lucubrations of the Henley-c uni- Whibley gang? ‘The Vengeance of James Vamittart ’ relates the punishment which overtakes Diana Charteris when, to lift her family out of a slough of money troubles, she marries Maurice Vansettart, a moral and physical weakling, but the heir of a millionaire. Hardly is this sacrifice consummated than through a combination of circumstances it would spoil the story to indicate Maurice finds himself a beggar, and Diana discovers she has been defrauded. The blow falls specially heavily, as the girl loved a mau now rich who could have done for her relatives all the wretched Maurice promised to do, and made her happy into the bargain. Fortunately, Diana’s moral fibre is really fine and she makes a gallant and successful effort to do her duty by her husband. How it is rewarded I leave you to discover. A new novel entitled ‘ Uld Mr Tredgold,’ by Mrs Oliphant, commences in the June ‘ Longman’s,’ and the same month will see the beginning of Rhoda Broughton’s ‘ Scylla or Charybdis ’ in ‘ Temple Bar.’ In the May ‘ Young Man ’ I note an interesting article on Mr Quiutiu Hogg’s magnificent philanthropic, and educational work at the Polytechnic. On the books of this institution there are now L), 000 members and students, and it is almost as diilicult to secure entrance to some of its clubs within a club as to be put down for the Travellers or the Badminton. At present 3,500 young fellows are attending the afternoon and evening classes, 500 of which are held between Monday and Saturday. Mr Hogg, who was an E’.on boy himself, believes intensely in the moral influences of games and athletics. As he very truly says: “ A fellow who keeps himself in good training for athletic exercises cannot he morally had. That is what I want to get people to see.” Tire Polytechnic has always been worked on this principle, neither religious nor educational matters being permitted to usurp the proper periods for physical exercise. The ‘ Young Man ’ also contains a very fair article on Ibsen by Mr W. J. Dawson, and some observations on sensational preaching by Dr Parker, which are more pertinent than most of that fearful Philistine’s deliverances.

The manuscript of White’s ‘Natural History of Selborne ’ was sold for £-29-1 at Sotheby’s last Friday, when a fair set of the four folios of Shakespeare fetched £446, the third (which is the rarest and was a fine eopy)_ realising £2BO. A first edition of ‘ Robinson Crusoe ’ (all three parts) was knocked down for £72, the Tennyson ‘Poems of Two Brothers’ £ls, ‘Vicar of Wakefield’ edition) £56, and Milton’s ‘ Poems ’ (first edition) £42. Forthcoming books include a novel by the Hon. Mrs Henniker (sister of the Lord Lieutenant) ; ‘ Othello’s Occupation,’ by Mary Anderson {not Mrs Navarro); ‘The Heart of Life,’ by W. H. Mallock; Hollingshead’s ‘ My Lifetime ’ ; and ‘ The Convict Ship,’ by Clark Russell. RACINf: NOTES. Fine weather and fine sport characterised the brief Epsom spring meeting, and, taking all things into consideration, the merry punter had a fairly good lime. One or two hot favorites went under, notably Colonel North’s Soulto in the opening race, which, starting at 6 to 5 on in a field of half a dozen, could only get third to Isagou (a smart four-year-old filly by Isonomy—Escapade) and Paddy, who was backed down to 7 to 4 for the Great Metropolitan and finished nowhere. For this event eleven moderate handicap horses went to the post, but the distance—two miles and a-quarter—-was furlongs too far for most of them, and at the judge’s box Sir James Duke’s Cornbury, by Rosebery Ceres (4 yrs, 6.7), was cantering along three lengths in front of Lady Normanton (4 yrs, 7.5), with Barbary (4 yrs, 7.13) a wretched third. The winner, which started at 100 to 8 was admirably ridden by Harry Covey, a sixty-year-old light-weight, who was fashionable long before any of his rivals in .the race saw light. Covey’s victory was made the occasion of a demonstration comparable to that indulged in by the crowd when Ladas won the Blue Riband for the Premier. Backers received another set-back in the Banstead Plate, the Duke of Hamilton’s Rudder (by Kilwarlin), a 100 to 8 chance, winning by a nose from Balormond, with the favorite Powerscourt beaten into fifth place. But Mr Harry M'Calmont’s colt Freak, by Grafton—Escapade (3 yrs, 7.12), which started at? to 4 in a field of fifteen for the Great Surrey Handicap, put them into a good humor again by winning easily, and when Fieri?,el 11, appropriately placed the Prince of Wales Stakes to the credit of H.R.H. after a ding-dong struggle with Colonel North’s Wherwell, and so justified his favoritism, they went home exuberant. They opened the second and concluding day by selecting Golden Slipper for the Copthorne Plate, and the five-year-old son of Bend Or and Lady Tromp just managed to get his nose past the post in front of Bach. The Betchworth Stakes, a five furlong dash for two-year-olds, was won by Dancing Laddie, an aptly-named son of Saraband out of Bonny Maid, which started at 4 to 1 in a field of eleven, and the Woodmansterne Plate respited in the runaway victory of The Tartar, by Chi ttabob—Tantrum, Six. the way was cleared for the event of the meeting—the City and Suburban Handicap,, value £1,435. This mile and a-quarter race brought out a field of nineteen. The antepost betting indulged in was of a pretty brisk character, but Mr Tom Cannon’s four-year-old colt Reminder, by Melanion—Postscript, which was allotted 8.9, had always a strong following. When the flag was hoisted backers were well content to accept 2 to 1 about Reminder’s chances. Second in demand were Filepa (5 yrs, 7.7) and None the Wiser (4 yrs, 8.12) at 10 to 1, whilst at prices varying from 100 to 8 to 20 to 1 good money went on Egerton (5 yrs, 7.5), Kb’kconnel (3'yrs, 7 7), Arcano (4 yrs, 7.5), Irish Car (4 yrs, 7.5), Son of a Gun (5 yrs, 9.0), Street Singer (4 yrs, 7,7), and Siowmarket (4 yrs, 8 9)., The friendless division included Bushev Park, Sancho Panza, Ella Tweed, The Rush, Middleham, Clwyd, Bard of Avon, Mogul, and Royal Favor. The runners were twenty' njintites late at the post, but Mr Coventry managed to get them away without any false starts. As the advance flag foil Irish Car shot out of the line and made play from Stowmarket, Reminder, and Egerton, with Son of a Gun and None the Wiser whipping in the remainder. At the mile post Mogul took up the running,

butgaye way to Rirkcdhnel and Bard of Avon when the top of the bill was reached. wiW-Sldwmarket in near - quar^r 'bf a^ipile home .difitriess. signals were. hoistetlvin plenty, and sponßeminder took his,place at the bead.of ■ affairaj and' at time Slowmarket ran into second place. The latter challenged ‘resolutely, but Morny Cannon kept his mount at full stretch, and reached thevinning.lppsbhalf a length to. the good. {/Four lengths, away-Irish-Car was a lucky third; jwith Son of a Gun and Smcho Rauza at her. neck-, and thd rest tailing out in the race, 2min 10 l-ssec. >. - ‘ •. *:

: The ‘ ‘ talent ” were bn the -spot once more in selecting Half-and-half,, by Black Byrong—Negress, forthe Kingswpbd Plate,

whieffshe won very easily.- Then came the Hyde Park.Plato, of for. two-year-olds, and for which eight goo.i-lookiugyoungsters went to the post. A favorite was quickly found in MrFarrie’d-fllly Radial a, by Springfield—Radiant, but before the flag fell Mr M'Calmon t’s Faversham was also backed down to 2to 1. After ah interesting race Radiata won by half ; a length, with Eau d’Or and the Dimity colt dead-heating for second honors;;

For the . final race of the meeting,-, the Tadworth Plate, to wit, backers once more entrusted theifmoney to Saulto, but lie failed to do more than win third money, Sally Brass 11. (5 yrs, 8.10) and the Earl of Annandale (G yrs,- 8.5) taking first and money respectively. The Saiidown Park Second Spring meettog was remarkable for small fields, desperate riding, and close finishes in the principal events. The Princess of Wales Handicap resulted in a short head victory for Mr Merry’s Diplomat, by Rosebery—Lady Cecil (3 yrs, 6,12), over Sir J., Duke’s The Corsican, by Exile ll.—Warble (3 yrs, 6.1), and a splendid race between the youngsters which turned out for the rich -Two-year-old Stakes ended in a dead heat between Last Tryst, by Tristan—Listen, and Dame Quickly, by Galopin—Primrose Dame, with Meli Melo a head behind third. FRENCH RACING. The Paris spring meeting concluded with a day of fine sport on Sunday last, when the card included the Poule d’Essai des Pouliches, a mile race for three-year-old fillies, value £2,643, and the Poule d’Es aides Ponlaiues, for three-year-old colts, distance one mile, value £2,515. For these rich prizes very poor fields competed, only eight turning out for the former, and four for the latter. In the ladies’ race the starters were—Andree by Retreat, Kasbah by Vigilant, Beatrix by Le Sahcy, Pietro Mala by Atlantic, Pole Star, Dejanire, Phtebe, and Heureuse. Baron Schickler had engaged Sam Loates to pilot Beatrix, and his mare started a hot favorite at sto 4 on. Bub after heading the field at the distance Beatrix cracked, and was immediately passed by Andtoe, Kasbah, and Pietra Mala, who passed the judge as named. The pace throughout was hot, and the winner’s time Imiu 45 3-ssec. Forthe colts’ race the Baron also supplied a warm favorite, La Sagitaire, by Le Sanoy, being an 11 to 8 on chance at flag-fall. The winner, however, turned up in Launay, a son of the gallant little Bard, out of Lina, which beat Derviche 111., after a fast-run race, by half a length, in Imin 44 2-ssec. The favorite was a bad third. Launay started at 2 to 1 and Andree at 7 tod.