The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-09 00:00:00

THE

hat, until some better plan could be devised for the pro-
tection of electors, he was favourable to that system
whiell was alrea.ly established in many countries. But
b e
was no new convert. Fourteen or fifeen years ago
1,-"
ee had had considerable experience in elections; and it
was no uncommon thing at that due to hear from an
elector that though he wished to vote on the liberal side,
he dared not. Recollecting this, and knowing), moreover,
that the same things bad happened within the last three
weeks, he could not, as an honest man and faithful repre-
tentative, abstain from stating on this, the first occasion
which he had addressed the House, that it was abso-
lutely necessary to shelter a man in the exercise
of the right of election confereed on him by the Consti-
!riot). It was worse than trifling with the population of
—l' Country to put into their hands the power to elect
representatives, and deny them the means of using it
independently.—(hear, hear.) The petition to which he
had already referred stated that many electors had been
Intimidated from giving their votes by threats of ruin to
their families. And yet these electors had a duty to
perform.
a They were trustees for those who had no votes.
Ile therefore ventured to add his voice to those of more
impertent Members who had addressed them, and urged
the Noble Lord to grant reform in time, and not wait
till it was forced upon him. The ballot was used in
clubs and other private institutions with the view of pre--
'renting anger and ill-will amongst the members; and if
that were necessary in such cases. how much more neces-
-11141 Was it amongst the constituencies of the country,
rile any of whom were often driven to the serious ahem e-
",re, of either facing utter ruin or sacrificing their prin-
c•P'es? He would, therefore, urge upon her Majesty's
Government that when next !sear they came before the
public with their promised Reform Bill, the measure
Should be a generous one, and not given grudingly; for
if reforms were doled out little by little, they would not
be thanked for it and as soon as the people had got that
they Would try to obtain more.—(Cheers, and "Divide.")
neveral minutes elapsing and no Hon. Member rising
to address the House,
The
..„. SPEAKER said that strangers must withdraw.
air. S. CRAWFORD then rose and expressed his
Stirprise that Lord J. Russell had not spoken upon the
tihieet of the motion. —(Cries of `° Divide.") As Hon.
Crawford)
seemed anxious to go to a division he (Mr.
`enraWford) would not stand between them and that de-
awete--(Cheers.)
The House divided, and there appeared—
For the motion
Against it ... ... ... ... 50
Majority for the motion and against
the Government ... ..- ••• —37
AlThe result was hailed with vociferous and prolonged
'alters.
Leave was then given to brine in the Bill.
REPRODUCTIVE LABOUR (IRELAND)
1 Jitr. SCULLY rose and proposed the following reso-
eii°fl :—" That in order to lighten the severe pressure
poor-rates in Ireland it is expedient to facilitate by
eery
means the employment of the inmates of work,
bisiuses in reproductive labour, so as to make these este-
Ihmeuts as far as possible, self-supporting; and that
ala the duty of the Poor•law Commissioners to see so
liveasirable an object fully carried out." The Hon Mem-
r complained that the workhouses of Ireland were
crowded with able-bodied poor, and that they were
Vight to do nothing besides picking oakum and break-
Zig stones on the road, whilst emigration was the only
e,arls of relief left to the boards of guardians.
t,y,•arc. O'FLAHERTYseconded the motion. He had seen
an vantages of the self-supporting system in his own
at"ai where, in the course of eleven months, they had
I)ted a saving of 1,0001.
ki?tr ay. SOMERVILLE was fully alive to the import-
d 46 of the subject; but the Hon. Gentleman who intro-
trtliaceld the motion had d confounded the question of indus-
iootiest!mPloyment with that of productive labour. Those
acme
, were, however, very distinct, and though the
the °r-law Commissioners in Ireland were not opposed to
taiaraeouragement of a self-supporting system of indus-
nee i'llaPloyment in workhouses, they did not, however,
aourli`euance a system of productive employment which
ellattl convert poor-houses into manufactories, so as to
th„ute the produce of pauper labour to be brought into
freearket, to compete with articles the produce of the
ktta ilaabourer. Suppose, for instance, a farm were
Seaoc ed to a workhouse, and they brought its produce
the the market, they could not only compete with, but
tie could undersell, the farmer, and thus in a short
the ,tueY would reduce the farmer to the condition of
litatrliPer. The guardians of the poor, in many in-
tecer,-efs, had availed themselves of the provisions of a
hout:" 'let to attach 25 acriik of land to the union work-
%tees for the employmeM of pauper boys, and the
se raissioners had in no instance opposed that system.
t,
the thoughte it better to leave the matter in the hands of
reodo°lzusissioners, and he must, therefore, oppose the
Itir,
kr. ROCHE„), supported the motion.
kin, f• SCROPE said that the sound principles of
Ploye'iaL economy required that paupers should be era-
sate s °ll Productive rather than upon useless labour—
else„Cs breaking stones, and other employment of that
ritiZer, and ho could not understand why those sound
°their:es Should not be carried out in all union work-
Sir 'e
The
WALSH did not think that the motion if
;the 4)41 Would lead to any displacement of free labour.
for len-etl'e ought to recollect that the Hon. Member
to calprverary did not ask for any grant of public money
withie•rY Out his proposal, but merely that the poor
Prise - workhouses in Ireland should be employed in
tardeti_,etive labour. If the experiment were tried as re-
stireji iisx, he believed it would give the greatest
kilt. ins to free labour, and that no great principle of w-
tl4, leal economy would be violated by it. He saw no terpretas-
eesger in assenting to the motion, and should—while Mr. SCULL]. .
eilard•
ea lng himself against sanctioning large industrial The House divided, e-
tsblishments—give it his support. For the motion ... eolonel DUNNE considered that the principle of the Against it ...
all ... ... ...
Poor-law
was essential to the carrying out of the present Majority ... ...
t•o0r-law in Ireland. He did not think it would be ad- Mr. FRE WEN moved f'
hs'aable to make workhouses manufacturing establish- the 29th day of M'-
:-4elite, but as the motion merely went to enable the in- Commissioners - -
atee of workhouses to contribute towards their own B. Reid
SUPport by productive employment, he should give it his es
ordial support.
Is Colonel THOMPSON would illustrate tho question
uefore them in the following manner:—Suppoae the in-
kete
tecniAs of a poorhouse in Ireland or England grew, he
b -`" say, cauliflowers.—(Laughter.) As it would not
eo° 4ecessary to feed paupers upon them, they would, of
eaurse, be sold in the market; and there would thus be
teartrease of commodities thrown into the cauliflower
eo,,•'t. The result of that would be that they must in-
ef "'neatly go and buy potatoes; and the same process
'ending the potatoes in their turn into the potato
marketfriends
would also occur.—(Hear, hear.) Ile hoped their
herds from Ireland would " thaw upon that," and he
th. oo doubt that they would be able to make some-
ine ee
teethe Ut t.--(" Hear," and a laugh.) But suppose
pro4C it.—("
produced, the ratepayers would have to
coalcilue more money out of their pockets (which they
get
'let send into the market), and thus the ques-
tet before them was, whether the ratepayers should
si4nYthing or nothing for their money.—(Cheers.)
in L• 14. O'BRIEN admitted that there were difficulties
thoe-Pt,°Ying the poor in productive employment; but he
se,eght these difficulties might be overcome by a careful
the riatendence by the guardians. He should vote for
„peon°,
411. s •
koe i • CRAWFORD thought the employment of the
leh, or their own support was a less evil than keeping
see Masses of them in idleness, and should therefore
support the motion.
heeelC. HAMILTON said that recent changes had
Irelande means of increasing the number of poor in
riet„ , and he saw great advantages not so much in the
eistioa result of their labour as in the training and edu-
et w 4 Which it gave to the youth within the workhouse.
to t‘tts on that ground he hoped the House would agree
eastgka motion. If proposals like the present were to be
eei„uS' abstract principles of political economy the diffi-
jai:a6s ed, under which Ireland laboured would be greatly
Z
t4r. WILSON said that the experiment had been
heee in certain unions in this country. inwhich ehildraetn.
.0 been
se productively employed,
and it had been 'tled with the greatest advantages. But as the present
4tion extended to adult labour, he hoped the House,
h'!,,r the experience of the last few years, would pause
Zrore recognising that principle. In his opinion a great
mistake was committed in 1846 and 1847, in giving out-
door employment to the Irish poor. Ile believed that
each employ
_adminecnrteoafsethdepapaopoerrmismat.eriTalhlye in
yj
system
ad
ofthepan- TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD
free
labourer
Pe' colonies had been tried in Holland and Flanders on
tutsrge scale, and after a trial of twenty years had REFORM ASSOCIATION.
(EVERY MONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.)
tatrelleLd,sout a failure. He hoped the House would hest- Sir ,--On ...,.• ,—,,e, Monday the 7th, the Inhabited House Duty
believede recognised ono of the most delusive and dan-
gerous On Tuesday leave was given to bring in a Bill for
Mr'
illocutriEnes that, could be advanced on the subject. taking off_ the tax on Attorneys Certificates, by 162 to 132.
cciantr• it BERT congratulated the House and the If the Working Classes and the tenants of houses under
pounds a year had genius, they would see in this
sati Yon the admission of the Hon. Gentleman. It was
Qendttiactory to find, even at the eleventh hour, an Hon. a step towards a
.necessity for continuing the Income
the "'au, a member of the Government, admit that Tax, as something of a compensation for paying at
at,Measure of relief adopted by the Government eleven times the rate of the rich on things which they
4)4.inst the protests and warnings of every man of corn- twenty
consume. The friends of the people are too dull to see
. tya Berkeley'sishra
e c t
omotion
1,,,ri sense were to be considered a failure.—(Hear, hear.)
this; ogles the truth is, that the ple have no friends.
gaged
out that system, Irish proprietors had mort-
aitge d their estates. It was not till after three years'
h c B fat), Hearir-
Mforr.the
Bern that they had been able to advise the Go- rinriged without opposition in the way of words,
leave to
wasto char
6, merit to reduce the urea of taxation, and the result On the sameienveanßinigli
in the proportion of sto 3. This
by 87 to 50, being
3,e; been that the Government, at ton, and
of the first Last year there great out-
looks like progress. thate was
a
woot:Was able to point to some improvement in the cry, in the press and elsewhere,the majority was
Cug of the poor-law in Ireland.
theac',r,"_l NAAS supported tho motion, but he thought been allowed '
by chance; there will hardly be the same again If I
speech I would
could have expected to have
e0„,11,10 articles produced in the workhouse ought to be
meets,"fled to the use of the paupers in those establish- for introducingthe thing by degrees, as for instance in
ii
site
cent e was happy to hear Hon. Gentlemen oppo- have suggested the desirableness of making an' opening
of Somend so eagerly in favour of the encouragement might have a tendency to
petition for the same. And it
cases where three-fourths of the actual voters should
produce. constituencies
Which 11. W. BARRON said that in the workhouse withproportion of their
forward such a step, if some of the large les
I would make the experiment, of what a
had 110 was more immediately connected the guardiansset their hands to such document.
thgeot this inmates
to manufacture all the articles used actualA voters would .
3111te to
establishment, and with the most beneficial re- •"facilitating
were of the Member for Tipperary for.
A curious and important question was raised by the
we_ the moral character of those poor people. There the employment of re hund d • led t
re s who were at present earning a su s s -
-rlce Out f ductive labour,
trial tr • 0 the workhouse in consequence of the indus-
ought not to inmates of
the inmates of workhouses in repro-
be left undecided. Ought the
hie s training they had received within it. A consider-
aving had,the
riNa payers at same time, . . been gained to the e or ought they, as to a greater or
workhouses to be employed in the wry by which most
money can e raised,
bur, had, dby that system; the lion. Member for West- less extent is the present practice, to be employed id
which would rigidly -
advocated
. .e. on that occasion, OS on many preceding ones,
breaking stones which nobody wants to use, or in digging
(''" a that barren and entravagant political economy ,
holes and' filling them up again, with the mere intention
rishita England apply the same principles to flou- 'of
,„,,, b and to wretched Ireland—to things the making their lives uueasy ? The argument for the
lastis, that if their produce is sold, it interferes with the
: diainetically opposite. He did not wish that the
proslice of the . u I bshould be sent into the
any-
Public
p,n,":_ market to compete with the produce of the inde- thing but the fallacy of Protection in another form.
Suppose the inmates of the workhouse grow cauliflowers;
wor`ii.eilotulattbourer. He only desired that the inmates of
which may be put for something it is not convenient or
so e 3 should be e
articles
was, which Whether they should support people in idleness in
son, ,_oo es,
whether they would enable those per- produce some effect in lowering the price of cauliflowers,
Thieue ribu.e to their own support ?
HANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that 1 and diminishing the reward of cauliflower-growers. But
expended on potatoes, thereby
the very sum produced is
if the •
dooraltimates of workhouses were to be employed within equal degree tendingto
raise the price of potatoes,
Se ab Only, it was clear that they could not be engaged and increase the reward of potato-growers. The thing
o product' •
Skil, ee , -on of wheat or oats, which would geese- is, therefore, in this respect, as broad as it is long
And next for the consequences of stopping this ex-
/ require oat' of-door employment. Nobody would i choge ct caulitimera for Ntottmos ond d.?oreeiug
,that

attempt to justify that system of public works in Ireland
which had formerly been adopted, except as a temparory
means of savin, human life. He was sorry to see the
distress and disease in that country, but it must be re-
collected from the large loans so liberally granted, that
Government had done all it could to mitigate those evils,
although they might not have been completely success-
ful in saving human life. But he contended in what had
been done was to be found the complete justification of
Government. Had the Government not so liberally sup-
plied loans of money, there could hardly be any doubt that
the sacrifice of human life would have been much greater
than took Alice. If they were simply to say that the
Poor-law Commhsioners had done right, it would be
proper to give the approbatio❑ of the House. But if it
was intended to change the existing system, in order, as
the resolution stated, to make the workhouses self-sup-
porting, he warned the House against embarking in so
fatal a project. How was this to be accomplished? Had
not the Government been providing workhouse accom-
modation as far as possible, in order to avoid giving out-
door relief? It was thereby intended to make out-door relief
so distasteful as that few would be inclined to apply for it.
This was a sound principle and ought not to be lost
sight of. In the workhouse the food and lodging were
better than the labourer could generally obtain by his
labour. But if, in addition, you found him labour, you
injured the value of the workhouse test, and you would
do nothing but mischief. The great object of the work-
house test was to prevent parties from throwing them-
selves on the workhouse relief when they could maintai❑
themselves out of the workhouse. But this would not
be done if the Hon. Member's proposition was acted
upon. Hon. Members connected with Ireland might take
advantage of English experience and avoid the inconve-
nience and danger of making the workhouse too com-
fortable. He was satisfied that no temporary reduction
of rates would compensate for evils that would be in-
flicted on the ratepayer and on the labourers by adopt-
ing a system that had been found to work so mis-
chievously in England—namely, that of injuring the
stringency of the principles of the workhouse
test. His recommendation was to make labour
in the workhouse as distasteful as possible, and
to discourage application for workhouse relief unless
as a last resource, and he considered that the safety
of property in Ireland consisted in maintaining the
stringency of the workhouse test. If this principle
was departed from, Hon. Members might be sure they
would have introduced a system, the effects of which they
would rue to the end of their days.
Mr. SCULLY said he was not against the workhouse
test. His principle was, that it was safer to give labour
in the workhouse than to keep paupers in the workhouse
without labour.

Mr. HENLEY said the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Secretary for Ireland had treated the question differently
from the Right Hon. G. ntleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He was for maintaining the workhouse
test, but he was at a loss to conceive how giving labour
in the workhouse was to break down the workhouse
test. He could not understand the confusion of terms
by which this was sought to be established. He could
not understand the arguments of the Hon. Member for
Westbury. Was not the labour given on the relief
works in Ireland out-door relief ?—(Hear, hear.) The
House was placed in a difficulty, because the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the
case by asserting the motion was intended to break down
the workhouse test. He could not perceive that such
was the object, or would be the effect, of the motion. He
should be opposed as much as any one to such a result,
for he fully appreciated the value of the workhouse
test. With respect to relief for Ireland, he thought G,i-
vernment were hardly pressed on that subject. In 1846
no objection was made by Irish Members to the mode of
relief ; they only thought that it would not be co-ex-
tensive with the calamity which had overtaken that
country. It was hardly just to complain now of what
had been done.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said every Hon. Gentleman had
been anxious to explain away the nature and character
of the motion. If the House believed that the Poor-law
Commissioners had acted judiciously, it would be dan-
gerous to agree to a resolution which affirmed a prin-
ciple different to that which had hitherto been acted
upon by those Commissioners. If the principle of the
workhouse test was to be retained, well and good; but if
the Poor-law Commissioners were to consider how pau-
pers were to be set to work in the workhouse, he thought
thereby that the stringency of the workhouse test would
be very materially attacked. If productive labour was
encouraged in workhouses, his opinion was Ireland
would very soon suffer to a very serious extent, and
would gain no substantial advantage for the temporary
diminution that might occur in the rates. He thought
the House was not warranted in affirming the resolution
of the lion. Member, which went to injure the stringency
of the workhouse test, and to introduce productive la-
bour into the workhouse. Reference had been made to
those relief measures by which Government endeavoured
to mitigate—for they could only hope to mitigate—the
fearful calamity which fell on Ireland. Ho had never
underrated the force of the heavy dispensation of Provi-
dence in blasting the growth of the potato; but he must
say he did see with pain the story told to Ireland, that
the diminished numbers of the Irish people was to be
referred to want of food which Government could have
supplied. With regard to the measures Laken by Go-
vernment for the relief of the calamity, it was far easier
to criticise them now that the time had gone by, than it
was to devise suitable measures when the calamity was
in full operation.
Sir D. NORREYS was understood to express him-
self as opposed to the terms of the motion, as, from
what had previously occurred, it was liable to misin-
terpretation.
Mr. SCULLY replied.
The House divided, when there apperred—
For the motion ... ... 42
Against it
Majority ... ... —22
Mr. FRE WEN moved for a copy of a letter, dated
the 29th day of May, 1851, addressed to the Lords
Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, by Dr. D
B. Reid, and also the protest accompanying
it, in refe:
rence to proceedings connected with ;he new Houses of
Parliament.

The motion was agreed to.
Mr. CLEMENTS moved for a copy of all the cor-
respondence which had taken place between the Lords
Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury and the Com-
missioners for administering the laws for the relief of
the poor in Ireland, respecting the advance, distribution,
or expenditure, of the amounts raised under the autho.
rity of the Act 12th and 13th Vict., c. 24, for a general
rate in aid in Ireland:—" Account showing, under sepa-
rate heads, the different purposes for which money has
been granted to distressed unions in Ireland, under the
provisions of the Act 12th and 13th Vic., cap. 24, for a
general rate in aid; distinguishing the amount allotted
in each half-year, and on the whole to each union, for
each purpose respectively; the gross amount thus appro-
priated, and the balance left available. And statement
explanatory of the circumstances under which the ad-
vances have been made in each case to distressed unions
and electoral divisions in Ireland, under the provisions
of the Act 13th Vic., cap. 14, whether as regards the
payment of the union debts generally, or for the reduc-
tion of the balances standing against particular electoral
divisions."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was
willing to give the latter part of the motion. As to the
correspondence it could not be printed before the close
of this session of Parliament.
After a few words from Colonel DUNNE,
The motion was agreed to.
The orders of the day were disposed of.
The House adjourned at a Qaarter-past Twelve.

The following Members paired on Mr. H. Berkeley's
motion upon the ballot:—
Against.
For.
Dundas, Admiral Maunsell, T. P.
Heywood, J. Gaskell, J. M.
Romilly, Colonel Russell, H.
Tufnell, Rt. Hon. IL Brooke, Lord
Hutchins, E. J. Miles, P.
Berkeley, Admiral Vyse, Captain
Freestun, Colonel Lockhart, W.
Horsman. E. Pakington, Sir J.
Boyle, Lieut.-Colonel Williams, P.
Berkeley, G. Guernsey, Lord
M‘Greoor, J. Chatterton, Colonel
Grenfell, C. W. Forbes, W.

the paupers shall be employed in digging holes and fill-
ing up again, and their maintenance be paid for by the
rate-payers. The money of the rate-payers goes to buy
potatoes for the paupers, instead of being laid out on
some branch of industry or other for their own behoof; so
that to industry in the aggregate, exclusive of the rate-
payers, there is no difference. But there is this most
substantial difference, that the rate-payer gets nothing,
instead of something, for his money. The rate-payer,
therefore, as it needed no conjuror to tell, loses the dif-
ference. And this is the way in which the maintenance
of paupers is a loss to the country, viz. by the
taking of the amount from the rate-payers, through the
intervention of their getting nothing for their money,
though to industry in the aggregate, exclusive of them,
there is a balance.
If this is true, the dread of allowing paupers to do
anything that may produce an income, is a superstition.
And it is a superstition which is only another form of
the superstition of Protection, consisting in regarding
the outcry of the parties who feel their profits in-
terfered with, without regarding the facts, that there are
other and equal parties whose profits are raised in the
same degree, and that the further result of the scheme
is to bo that a third set are to give their money for
nothing. If this is so, it is a point that must be stuck
to, and carried inch by inch; for the expense of all the
paupers in England and Ireland is not to be gratuitously
thrown upon the rate-payers for a blunder or a whim.
In these days of Free Trade, this is a question which
ought to be worked out to the utmost, and will be.
I am, Sir, yours very sincerely,
AN OLD REFORMER.
London, July 9, 1851.

TO MR. G. 11. HARRIS, EXHIBITOR'S COM-

MITTEE-ROOM, HOLBORN.
Sir,—l request you to understand that nothing but
the sincere respect which I entertain for the body of ex-
hibitors would have induced me to take the slightest
notice of your letter of yesterday; because having attri-
buted to me language which I never used, and imputed
to me opinions which I never entertained, you have dis-
qualified yourself from being considered as an opponent
who keeps in view the only just end of all discussion—
truth.
You have asserted " that I have no right to say that
the humble artisan was not actuated by as pure a motive
in lodging his handicraft in the Crystal Palace as the
Duke of Devonshire, or any other exalted personage, in
contributing his costly treasures?'
Assuredly I have no right to say this, because I never
felt it, never did say it, and never penned a sentence
which could ever bear such a construction. Motives
may be equally pure although widely different, and I
pity that man who does not believe that the artisan,
sending to the Exhibition an article on which he has
employed his time and talent, in the hope of bringing it
under public attention, that he may be better able to
contribute to the comfort of those he loves, is not ac-
tuated by as pure a motive as can fill the human breast.
You then say, " assume, if you please, that we are all
actuated by the low and grovelling motives you have
attributed to us"—yet this, Sir, is your own assumption
and not mine, for certainly I never attributed either
directly or indirectly " low or grovelling motives" to
any one.
In what school, Sir, you have learnt to apply such
epithets to the British merchant, manufacturer, trades-
man, or artisan, who has sent to the Crystal Palace
" articles in which they deal, and from which they ex-
pect to derive a profit," I neither know or care, but this
I do know, that you have committed a gross injustice in
imputing to me such a monstrous absurdity.
And you then have the hardihood to say—" reiterate,
if you please, this libel upon your countrymen"—
reiterate indeed! ! Do you know the meaning of the
words you use? Such a libel was never thought of, cer-
tainly never written or spoken, by me; how therefore
can I reiterate it?

As might be expected from a writer who could, either
through sheer ignorance, or a worse motive, resort to
such unworthy means, the rest of your letter hardly re-
quires a reply. You ask, "ifl am really serious in be-
lieving that such men as the Duke of Devonshire and
Mr. Hope deem themselves under an obligation by being
enabled to confer a benefit upon their fellow-creatures
by giving them an opportunity of seeing objects which
will arrest attention, stimulate exertion, and advance the
cause of civilization?"
To which I reply that I am really serious in such
belief, and would be very sorry to entertain any other,
but I am not so unreasonable as to be angry with you
because such obligation is beyond your comprehension.
I decline to accept your assurance " that you must
presume I was actuated by a love of country ' in exhi-
biting Corwar as it:was when purchased, and Corwar as
it is now; for although I am a firm believer in the truth
of the sentiment " that self-love and social is the same,"
yet the man who supposes that he is actuated solely by
the latter motive may possibly be honest, but assuredly
is not wise.
That the reclamation of waste land must sooner or
later become a national question, with the view to the
employment of the people in Scotland and in Ireland, I
sincerely believe, and therefore feel under an obligation
to the Royal Commissioners for the opportunity of show-
ing a mode in which it has been successfully carried into
practical operation.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
RIGBY WASON.
London, July 8, 1851.

SONNET
ON SEEING WYLD'S GREAT GLOBE.
And I have dared to dream of far 'off stars,
While questioning Eternity and Space;
Yet here in deep devotion, face to face
With my own strong and mortal prison-bars,
I stand, a mighty yet a shrinking thing,
Finding the distance strangely less, yet greater,
Than it e'er seemed between the One Creator
And the untold created. My soul's wing
Seemeth to bear a plume of purer birth
That wafts me nigh to the Immortal Power;
Yet my own sphere, studded with shell and flower,
Blinds with the dazzling mystery of " Earth."
What art thou? Nature tells, with voice sublime,
One of God's pyramids upon the sands of Time.
ELIZw Coos.