Clippings.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 244, 22 July 1876, Page 8

Clippings.

THE RIOTS IN BARBADOES. (From the Daily Neivs April 29.) The Barbadoes papers give an account of the disturbances at the public meeting which was about to be held in one of the parishes against the proposed confederation scheme, and the subsequent riot is supposed to have been brought about by those who favor cenfederation. The Earbadocs Globe says . “ The meeting that was to have been field at Mount Prospect did not take place. A large number of persons assembled, and among them many strangers to that district, armed witfi sticks. Mr. Pedder, the manager,, was about to inform the people that the friends who were to have addressed them had been prevented from attending, when a shower of stones were thrown by some confederates. A row ensued, and many gentlemen were assaulted. They retired to the house for safety, and being closely pursued, several shots were fired at the crowd. One man was wounded in the thigh, but he is not dead. Many managers in the neighborhood of Mount Prospect have, been severely wounded and beaten by the mob.” In a later number, the Globe of April 10, speaking of the rioters, says ; —“ Incited by some atrocious scoundrel, they intended an assault on the speakers from town, but their pi'ey had escaped. yV melee ensued, and the small party of gentlemen were driven to the house. A pistol shot is heard, and a man is wounded in the thigh ; then comes a rush ; the house is sacked ; the defenders are driven from chamber to chamber, and fall under the blows of sticks and other weapons, or escape as they can. The following morning a reward of 100 dollars was offered for the apprehension of Mr. Edward Parrist, gentlemen, believed to have shot the man. We learn that other gentlemen have been arrested, and those who are too ill from wounds, to be moved have guards placed in their bedchambers. Not a shilling has been offeied by the Government for the apprehension of a single rioter in the vicinity of the riot. The greatest agitation prevails at the present moment as two men, IVlorris and Stroud, for the last fortnight have been haranguing the people without any notice being taken by the authorities at their proceedings.” THE TREATMENT OF DRUNKARDS. At various times there have been numerous theories suggested as to the best mode of treating drunkards, but a proposition made by a writer m the Licensed Victuallers Gazette is, to say theleast,novel. He says : —lst. I propose that any person being found intoxicated in any public place, that is in hotels, streets, or places of amusement, should be liable to be summoned before a magistrate for the offence, and if so drunk as to be helpless, that the police should be instructed to take the individual to his residence, and the expense be charged against the person, and he have to appear, and then be called upon to pay the expense. That in the event of the inebriate becoming disorderly or obstructive, he should be taken to the stationhouse,

where he should be brought before a medica 1 man. The police station to be as near a hospital as possible, but either, near a hospital or not, I would have a medical man in attendance, and I would provide for the payment of the doctor by charging the fee (which should be moderate! to the inebriate ; and if he could not pay the same upon conviction before the magistrate, the magistrate should be empowered to make the amount payable out of his earnings as a very first charge. After being examined by the doctor as to his state, he should be placed in a warm cell and properly cared for by having covering given him, and if obstreperous should be supplied with a straight jacket, but in all cases he should be allowed to have such restoratives as-the doctor might order. The doctor should, or the police-sergeant should, every half-hour see that the inebriate was properly cared for. At a certain time in the morning, if the inebriate should be sufficiently sensible, he should be permitted to send for bail, and upon bail being accepted he should be allowed to leave, and be bound to appear on the same morning, or the morning following should severe prostration of the system justify the delay. So far so good, this is all in favor of the person who has got drunk ; but I propose on the other hand that all this should be paid for : the removal home, the doctor’s fees, the nourishment supplied, the charge for lodging, the expense of sending for bail, and the charge for hearing the case. This to be recoverable from the offender summarily or become a charge on his earnings, to be paid as the magistrate might direct. In the event of paupers, or persons incapable of paying, the whole or part of these charges might be omitted at the option of the magistrate. For the first offence the offender’s name should not be published. 2nd. For the second offence I would inflict a fine of twenty-five shillings, in addition to the above expenses. 3rd. For the third offence I would inflict a fine of forty shillings, and suggest that it be further enacted that the magistrate order the offender to wear a three months’ medal on his or her breast.

4th. That upon a person being convicted of a fourth offence, he should be imprisoned for twenty-four hours, and be ordered to wear a six months’ medal, in addition to a fine of forty shillings, and the charges. sth. That upon conviction of a fifth offence, the offender be imprisoned for one week, and be ordered to wear a year’s medal without fine or charges. 6th. That upon a sixth offence being proved, the offender should be imprisoned for one month, and be ordered to wear a life medal, without fine or charges. The medal above alluded to should be worn upon the breast in a prominent position, and should be for the third offence the medal only, for the fourth with one clasp, for the fifth with two clasps, and the life medal should be surmounted with a decorative emblem. And it should be enacted that during the time that such person wore the medals no person whatever should supply the wearer with intoxicating liquors of any description, and that any persons so doing should be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month for the first offence, and not less than one month nor more than six months for the second offence. It should also be made law that persons ordered to wear medals omitting to do so should be punished in like manner. The three and six months’ medals to be delivered up at the expiration of the time. However, as the law at present stands we must accept it. My plan is not so matured so far as regards punishment for any additional offence committed by the person whilst under the influence of liquor ; but I will say that the law as it exists—or, I may be more correct if I say, the institution known as the police cell is in its practice (a blot upon our civilisation. It is the boast of England’s subjects that every one is innocent until proved to be guilty, and yet thousands of people are cruelly punished every year by being cast into damp, cold, and miserable cells for long weary hours, with no food ; they are ordered about by the police and made to perform work, and then have to wait for probably some hours before his Worship takes his seat on the bench. More punishment is in store, for the newspapers are permitted to make his name public, and this in the face of the decision of a magistrate, that a drunken person is not bound even to give his name. But I must leave the remainder of my reflections for another time. LONDON TOWN TALK. (From the correspondent of the Melbourne Argus.) The best thing that has yet been said about the “Empress” Proclamation Bill I heard at a mess-table the other day, a place where wit of the political sort is not common—“ Oh it’s all right about the Queen being made Empress; everybody does take brevet rank, you know, upon retirement.” By the bye, you must permit me to remind you that I did express to you my opinion—contrary though it was to that of society at large—that Dizzy, and only Dizzy, was answerable for placing this gewgaw among the Crown jewels. I said that the idea struck me a 3 being consonant with the taste for pinchbeck splendor exhibited by the author of Lothair, and now he has owned that “alone he did it.” Please to notice, too, in Punch last week, the joke about the butler. “ Won’t you say often sober !” That I sent you three months ago. This is serious, because Punch has hitherto been not more than six weeks behind time in publishing the latest current facetiae. The very best joke, though spoilt a little by its being in the antiquated form of a riddle, that has been lately heard in London, is connected with woman’s rights, and, let us hope, will solace the advocates of that Bill for the defection of John Bright—“ Why should not a woman be a chemist !” Why, indeed, when, if not an Anne Eliza, she must needs be a Charlotte Anne. The Prince of Wales has gained golden opinions for refusing to attend a bull-fight in

Spain. It wag feared, from what had happened in India, that he might have been persuaded to do so ; but he has judged, and judged rightly in my opinion, that the shows of an Indian prince are not to be classed in the same category with the cruel sport which is the disgrace of Spain. It is a curious proof of the huge sums won and lost on our own national amusement, the turf, that the jockey who rode Petrarch, the winner of the Two Thousand, received by post an anonymous gift of five hundred-pound notes. Unless the percentage was extraordinarily high, what a sum of money must have been “ netted ” on the event to suggest such gratitude on the part of the donor ! My own experience is that betting men, whatever their faults, are generally liberal, and that if any of our charitable institutions would place a money-box with a slit for the charitable at Newmarket and Epsom, they would reap great advantage. Winners would give out of thankfulness for success, and would-be winners would also give in hopes of propitiating fortune. I know a northern trainer who always goes to church on the eve of the St. Leger. The largest price bidden for a picture at Christie and Manson’s, our great art auctioneers, was given on Saturday last by Mr. Agnew, the dealer, to whom, after a long competition, watched and applauded by half the connoisseurs in London, Gainsborough’s « Duchess of Devonshire” was knocked down for 10,100 guineas. This was one of the collection of the late Wynn Ellis, who purchased it of a Mrs. Magennis for £65. It is cracked all over 'except the face and hands, a circumBtance which I have no doubt rather enhanced its value—or at least its price—than otherwise. Mrs. Magennis, it is proved, gave but £SO for it, but it is not certain if she bought it at firsthand. What the poor artist himself received for it is consequently not known, something so amall, I suppose, that it was not worth mentioning. This is an idea that to me does not make the fact of these huge sums being given for dead men’s paintings a subject of such unalloyed congratulation as it seems to afford to some people. It also withdraws a great deal of money from the capital to be invested in modern art, for whoever eventually pays for such a purchase, we may take it for granted that it will not be the dealer whose seeming munificence we applaud. The sea-serpent has been seen again, and never have the details of his appearance been worked up in a more striking fashion. “ It raised itself up 40ft. out of the water, and with a frightful bellow” (now most snakes, with the trifling exception of the rattlesnake, are dumb) “ struck the mainmast of the P. and O. steamer Hydaspes with its tangled head so that it shook the vessel.” The writer describes the whole ship’s company and all the passengers as having witnessed this, except the captain, who remained below, obstinately bent upon not seeing it. Punch took up one captain for seeing a sea-serpent, and that captain never got over it, so remember I didn’t see this one. There is every detail that can be desired in this agreeable narrative. But there are two drawbacks, to my mind, to its pretensions to truth —first, the narrator is a missionary; and, secondly, the Daily Telegraph believes the story. When the Hydaspes reaches Southampton we shall know more about it. In the meantime, it appears to me— that is, not the animal, which has never appeared to me, but the circumstance to be a “ whopper.” • On Saturday, May 7, there was a meeting at Bushy-park that was really astonishing—no less than 500 bicyclists came on their twowheeled steeds to “ witch the world ” with hobby “ horsemanship.” Some of them came from Portsmouth (68 miles) that very morning, which very few real horses could have done, without a mouthful of corn, or a drop of water. Most of this great gathering was, however, from the metropolitan counties, and a very creditable one it was. The pace at which they all took their three miles’ “spin” was something marvellous, and as their indiarubber tires made the machines noiseless, it was literally “a moving spectacle.” One could not help thinking that some military use might be made of such an invention. One has heard of horses shod with felt ; but here were mounted men going swifter than cavalry, and without the ghost of a sound. Why should not our gallant volunteers start a bicycle battalion ! The recruits, however, must be taught young, for —the Bight Hon. Bobert Lowe excepted—l never saw a good bicylist over fifty years of age. The debate in “ the House ’ respecting barristers being compelled to perform their duties when they have been prepaid for them — i.e., to take no brief to which they have no time to attend —has resulted in nothing, the “ wig ” element being very strong in Parliament, though the Liberal party is so weak. But it is to be remarked that the only two solicitors who spoke on the matter were in favor of the motion, and did not conceal the views they entertained of the greediness and want of principle of the gentlemen of the long robe. The mistake of being too fashionable has led me into an error, but please to understand that it is not my own devotion to fashion that is to blame. It is the fault of Lord Howard de Walden. I told you —what everybody told me—that he was going to be married to Miss Kate Dickenson, and I even knew a man who had heard Vice-chancellor Malins give his permission to the young lady, as a ward of chancery, to become his lordship’s bride. This gentleman was wrong as to the name ; the world at large was wrong as to the fact. But the curious part of the affair is that long after I had written you of the engagement, the marriage itself was announced as having taken place at the usual church in Harroversquare, in the Pall Mall Gazette, and coined from thence into The Times. It now appears that Lord de Walden himself contradicted, weeks ago, the report of his engagement in the columns of the Morning Post, a paper which, unfortunately, nobody but Lord de Walden and other exalted personages of his class ever read. If you want “ the greatest circulation”

you must go to the proper place for it. It is clear his lordship did want it, since his man of business has now written to The Times for him to say he is married to quite another young lady, and therefore his proceeding as he did is only another proof of the exclusiveness and eccentricity of his noble race. In his brother s (the Duke of Portland) cellar were, I believe, recently found 8000 dozen of champagne, quite black from age, and madeira 90 years old, quite “ gone all because he will have his own way and not be interfered _ with. The mistake about the marriage is doubtless extremely painful to Miss Dickenson, because it revives a disagreeable incident in the public mind ; but in the interests of the community at large it is scarcely to be regretted, since it will certainly cause ex-Colonel Valentine Baker to remain in prison his full term, and very great influence has been used just now to get him out. His friends have written to the papers to say that confinement is doing him harm, and why should not bygones be bygones, &c,; and now he will have to remain in gaol till the London season is over. I have no doubt, if he wished it, that the ex-colonel might make a large sum by appearing on the stage, for the rage for morbid sensation is greater than ever. The bloodhound that discovered the Blackburn murder is just now the most valuable arrival in the market, and would put the trunk out of joint of the baby elephant itself which the Prince of Wales has brought home with him, and the proprietor of a London music hall bid £SOO for the dog, and when that was refused, £4OO for the lease of him for a fortnight. Of course this is a very vulgar exemplification of the appetite for excitement, but the arguments about “ sensation” generally as stated in the Saturday Review and other “ kid glove” periodicals are ridiculous. They say the taste for sensation is “ dying out.” The fact is precisely the other way ; but if it were not, if there were a temporary lull in such matters, the attraction of melodramatic incidents that occur in real life will always be overwhelming. SAVING MONEY. (From the Liberal Review.) It is to be feared that there are more people who better know how to spend money than to save it. If this were not so, the bankruptcy court would be less employed and creditors would seldom be called upon to permit their debtors to submit to that unpleasant process known as liquidation by arrangement. Yet there are few persons who do not resolve, at some time or other, that they will establish a reserve fund, and regularly add to it week by week and year by year. There are many causes which prevent them from carrying out their resolutions. A love of self-indulgence is one, weakness of will is another, and a fear of public opinion is a third. It will invariably be found that the man who has resolved to retrench breaks down at the very out set from the fact that he will not deny himself some pleasure to which he has long been accustomed. Assuming that he is in the habit of smoking the best cigars and drinking the choicest wines, which he would be just as well without, he cannot believe that they are not almost necessary to his existence, so he continues to consume them, even though, by so doing, he is compelled to run up formidable bills. Again, if he lives in a large house, which is much in excess of his requirements, he feels unable to betake himself to a smaller one, and seldom does so unless compelled by circumstances over which he has no control. He may tell you, in all sincerity, that he has resolved to retrench, but it would puzzle him to say in what way he intends to do so. There is a peculiar haziness about his ideas on this subject. Now, it should not be necessary to remark that the man who is determined to save money should have a number of settled purposes, that there should be a directness about his general aim ; that he must be indifferent to what is thought of him by his neighbors, and must rise superior to what seems to be a natural instinct, viz., to gratify his senses when he has the means in his pocket whereby he may do so. Now, this latter is precisely what those who are unable to save money cannot do, and hence their invariable breakdown. Provided that they have in their possession a little more cash than usual they are ready to fall victims to the first costly temptations which come in their way. Feeling that they are, so to speak, in luck they will buy some superfluous article of adornment or hold “ high jinks” in celebration of the fact. On the other hand, the being of strongly acquisitive tendencies makes no alteration in his mode of life when he is specially favored by fortune. Whatever windfall he receives he puts carefully on one side. Thus he gradually strengthens his position, while the person who regularly anticipates his income weakens his. At the end of ten years there will be a great difference between an acquisitor and an anticipator, even though they commenced upon equal terms and are the possessors of similar talents. The probability is that the acquisitor will be a man of power and the anticipator one of weakness who is full of complaints against fortune and prone to indulge in envious dissertations upon the acquisitor’s luck. Yet there has been no luck in one case more than the other, both men being simply affected by a natural law, which provides that the man who denies himself to-day shall be enabled to enjoy himself for two a year hence, and that he who recklessly indulges himself for one day now shall be compelled to go on short commons for two at the end of a certain time. The moral which may be drawn from this is so obvious that it is unnecessary for us to make any attempt to point it out. There is a great tendency to speak slightingly of those who save money, and to extol those who do not. It is not easy to indicate the precise grounds upon which this is done, but there appears to prevail an impression to the offect that one class are mean-souled, sordid, and greedy, while the other are full of generous i impulses. This impression, however, does not

seem to be justified by the facts of the case. In many cases, those who spend recklessly are by no means philanthropic. They throw about their money, it is true, but they do so more in a spirit of bravado than from charitable impulses. Their benevolence is, to say the best that can be said of it, decidedly erratic, and unfortunate indeed is the being who is dependent upon them. Because they scatter their gold with an apparently lavish hand wherever they go, and when the eyes of the world are upon them, it does not follow that they are doing anything more than giving way to a particular form of self-indul-gence. They may treat their friends to costly entertainments, but there is little charity involved in the proceeding when the entertainments are given at the expense of creditors who are being defrauded of their rights. Of course, it may be held that it is a rather clever thing to diddle one’s creditors in order that one may be generous to one’s acquaintances, but the man who does this invariably fails to stand the wear and tear of time. The probability is that, sooner or later, he attempts to diddle you with the same skill that he has diddled his creditors ; and the chances are that you discover ere long that his promises are not to be relied upon, and that it is hopeless to expect him to keep his engagements. Nor is this all. It will be found that, notwithstanding all his grand show, he is indifferent who suffers so long as he is not forced to deny himself. On the other hand, the man who saves money will generally be proved to be a man of his word. Unlike the spendthrift, who readily promises to do everything but actually performs next to nothing, the money-saver is slow to promise, but what he does engage to do he is quick to accomplish. This arises from the fact that when he makes an engagement he carefully calculates how far he will be able to fulfil it. He does not say that he will pay you a certain amount in a certain time on the strength of a vague hope that something will “ turn up” betwixt now and then, but upon that of carefully-thought out and reliable calculations. -He realises his obligations so keenly that he is occasionally led, perhaps, to be unduly cautious. At the same time, if you want a man to do a real serviceable act of charity you must go to him rather than to a magnificent being who holds £ s. d. in contempt. It is not surprising that he comes to the front in social life, and that he is placed in positions of power and responsibility. Selfdenial and integrity can never go unrewarded, their influence is so powerful and enduring. People may sneer at what they term miserliness. But providence is not miserliness, and the man who saves money is not necessarily a miser.