CURRENT TOPICS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11921, 19 June 1899, Page 4

CURRENT TOPICS.

,'X f, ■ , ' THE _. IRON DUKE’S BIRTHDAY.

As yesterday was the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, it, may not-be in*' appropriate to mention that the date of the Duke of Wel-

lington’s birthday has recently formed the subject for some discussion in England, May 1 was for years the date generally accepted ; but the works of reference are by no; means unanimous about the matter. The “Celebrities of the Century” tells tis that the Duke was bom on May 12, 1769. “ Chambers’ Book of Days ” gives the date as May 1, and is supported by the inscription on the Duke’s coffin-plate, by " Lodge’s Peerage,”'and by a yet older “Peerage,” edited by the late William Courthorpe, who enjoyed the reputation of being' a most trustworthy authority on such questions. “ Debrett ” declines to commit itself to more than the year. 1769, and “ Dod,” still ; less communicative, or perhaps more prtadfeht, gives no date at all. A certain- Florence Daley, in evidence before a Commission, is 1790, swore that the event took place aa early as March, and that she was present, “ Burke’s Peerage,”, on the , other hand* states positively that the Duke was bom on April 29. For many years the great soldier himself celebrated his birthday on May 1, and the Duke of Connaught, who was bom on May Day, was named .Arthur, out of compliment to the hero of Waterloo. Thfl Duke’s mother, the Countess of Mqmington, too, on more than one occasion, recorded May las her son’s birthday. Yet,, in ths parish books of St Peter’s, Dublin,in which city the Duke was born, appeals an entry tc the effect that a son of the Right Honorable the Earl and Countess of Momington wafi christened Arthur on April 30. This is non* firmed by a notice in “Exshaw’s zine ” for Maly, 1769, which’ gives the dais of birth as April 29. If the parish register of, St Peter’s is correct, it follows that the Duke of Wellington must have been bom at least before April 30. Even an Irishman would hardly maintain that an infant could b A christened before its birth. ’That thi birth took place at a later date may also be doubted, because the day-book of a Dublin apothecary contains an entry respecting medicine supplied for the Countess of Momington and child on April 30. There is ah most as much diversity of opinion regarding the Duke’s birthplace as there is'concerning the day on which he was born. One authority is absolutely positive that the interesting event happened Castle; another declares for Trim, the county town of Meath; a third for a bouse in Grafton Street, Dublin; and a fourth for 24-, Upper Merrion Street, Dublin. The last is supported by most of the newspapers of the time, , and is probably correct.

The overcrowding , in' ths poorer parts of London has produced a variety of monopolist known as the property

PROPERTY SWEATING.

sweater. This interesting individual owns bouses ill the localities where the exigencies of city life compel people to herd together, and he uses his advantages with heartless rapacity, charging enormous rents for * the most miserable tenements, and treating his tenants in a style unsurpassed by the most brutal of Irish “agents.” The last report of the West London: Mission gives soma truly horrifying facts illustrating the results of the’ operations of the property sweater.. “In St Anne’s Court, one of the dirtiest and. dingiest of our Soho Courts,” th»; report states, “13s. 6d per week is asked for .two small attics on the fourth floor. In Carnaby Street, two rooms, in a very dirty and dilapidated condition, were - available on the second floor for 17s a week. In Poland Street, there were two rooms, of which th® Pent was 14s 6d a week; but, now that they bad been whitewashed, the rent demanded was 17s a weds. There is one comparatively small house >in Broad Street into which forty-eight persons are incredibly crowded. In one room you would find a man, his wife, and eight children, some ol them grown-up 'men and women. In another room in the same house are a man, his wife, his seven children, and the wife of one of the grown-up children.” Horrible as this is, one of the agents of- the -mission found that there were still worse abominations. “In Church Street,” it is reported, Piper found fifteen men sleeping in one room, on. the floor. Each of them paid the landlady 3s per week. In Poland Street, he discovered a yet more horrible condition, three men lodgers, two women lodgers, th® landlady, her son and her daughter, .all sleeping together in one room. Men and women, boys and girls, are herded together indiscriminately in small rooms.” These cases occurred in Central London, and a similar state of affairs prevails in other parts of the great city. In the East End, matters are quite as had, and it is with satisfaction, that one. learns that there a Tenants Protection Association lias been formed in order to give the poor victims of the property sweater such guidance - and guardianship as the law', in. its present' defective state, lean afford them.

A MEMORY OR EUREKA.

There recently ; passed away a man who bore an important, though necessarily Unobtrusive, part in the de-

plorable, though never: to be forgotten,,..episode of the Eureka stockade. . This was a humble Irishman, named Patrick Garroß,

" ' who was the principal agent in saving the ’• lifi’of a'man who' afterwards rose to the Tiighest portions in. Victoria. - The goldminers of Ballarat, as most people in the ‘ colonies know, 1 were goaded to desperation 1 "in 1854 by intolerable Oppression, and rose in rebellion, irnder the leadership of Peter ■ Lalor. They occupied the Eureka stock- • ade, which was stormed by the military. Lalor, who Wds amongst the wounded, was Carried awayby some of his men to a bush hut, where one of his arms was amputated. The Government offered a reward of £SOO for him, dead or alive, and his friends decided to remove him to Geelong, some fifty miles to the soilth. Carroll was a carrier engaged in the Geelong and Ballarat trade, and he agreed to conceal Lalor at the bottom of his waggon. Thci-whole country wm-being scoured by mounted police in ..search of the:rebel leader, aid Carroll’s waggon was more-than once stopped by . ..tbem\ on- the - journey. But Carroll safely ran the gauntlet, and delivered the rebel chief into friendly hands at Geelong. Lalor afterwards became the first member for Ballarat, Postmaster-General, Minister of .Trade and Customs, Chairman of Committees, Speaker of two Victorian Parliaments, and a K.C.M.G. His preserver lately died in the hospital at an old man of eighty-ei^hb.

Mrs Olipbanb, whose GREAT men’s autobiography has jhst been . MANNERS, published, vjgs a shy woman, and saw little of literary ■society during her busy life, but she has given us some 1 Interesting glimpses of famous personages. Her first impressions of Tennyson, she says, were not pleasing ones. His appearance was too emphatically that of a poet ; he looked the pant too well. 1 But there was a roughness and acrid ■ ; ‘gloom'about'the man which “saved him from his over-romantic appeaiance.” Mrs - Oliphant called by invitation upon the Poet Laureate and Ms wife ih London. “ She found the'latter reclining upon a sofa, 8 and was much attracted by the delicatelooking lady.; When leaving Mrs Oliphant made a pleasant little remark on Mrs Ten- ' nyson’s kindness in allowing her to call, and her hostess made a gracious response. “Tennyson was standing by,” writes the visitor, “lowering over us with his ragged beard and his saturnine look. He byed

us, while these pretty speeches were being .made, witbcynical eyes. ‘ What liars you women are!’ he said.” The remark may have been ,true,enough, but. it was by no means civil. Carlyle, on the other hand, treated Mrs Oliphant with the utmost courtesy, and' won. her heart from tbs first 1 moment. She was at that time engaged . in writing her biography of Edward Irving, and Mr and Mrs Carlyle were, of course, overjoyed to be able to- assist her with . reminiscences of one who had been such • a good friend to them both. When the bo'ok came out Mrs Carlyle wrote to give the author.> her husband’s eulogy of the work. "I never heard him praise a Woman’s book, hardly any man’s, as cordially aji he praises this of yours! You are worth whole cartloads of Mulochs and Brontes and things of that sort. You are really a fine, clear, loyal, sympathetic female being.” And Mrs Oliphant thought ■no less highly of the Chelsea sage. Some years later she ventured to remark to his wife that "Mr ' Carlyle seemed the only virtuous philosopher we had.” The loyal wife quickly rejoined, “My dear, if Mr Carlyle’s digestion had been stronger there is no knowing what, he might have been!” We are not sure ourselves that Carlyle would have been much improved from a literary point of view by a strong digestion. But, however that may be it is anything but consoling to the admirers of Tennyson to find evidence accumulating of the; boorishness of the . great Laureate. Mrs Oliphant’s first .impressions seem rto have been the last of many other witnesses.