afterwards that his performance has been very
creditable indeed.

The tu quoque line of argument is to be
deprecated, but the daring of the arch-mediocrity
below us suggests the question, what
would a sensation poor law president be like ?
Suppose a man to succeed to office when public
opinion has insisted upon reform; suppose a
prime minister to herald him with a bombastic
flourish as " the fittest man in the Queen's
dominions" for his onerous charge; suppose
the man himself to assure the House of
Commons that all previous abuses have been
due to the mismanagement and indifference
of his predecessor; suppose the same man to
purchase the cheap cheers of his fellow-
legislators by braggart promises of efficient
control and personal sacrifice; and suppose him to
conveniently ignore his own statements, and,
while filching the labours of others, to throw
stones at them from the convenient shelter of
parliamentary place — would this be sensational?
Suppose the nation to be so outraged by the
abuses and cruelties tacitly sanctioned by one
notorious department and its officers, that some
show of justice and humanity to paupers is
found necessary to prolong the life of an
unpopular ministry — is the use of charity and
decency as political counters, sensational?
Suppose a servant of the State to be bold as a lion in
his pledges to the public, and as meek as a sucking
dove in his performances with guardians;
suppose him to be outwardly rigid and privately
compromising — is this sensational? Suppose
he, or an officer under his direction, to preface
public investigations by private interviews with
the people accused, wherein friendly hints are
given how damaging evidence may be
suppressed; suppose him to have other investigations
conducted with closed doors, and to cause others
again to be so craftily managed that the evidence
is published and the verdict resolutely kept
back — is this sensational? Suppose a pinchbeck
popularity to be earned by the adoption of
other men's ideas and a wholesale renunciation
of one's own — is this sensational? Suppose
underhand relations are endeavoured to be
established between a public body and its critics,
and sops to be proffered to Cerberus so deftly that
a stern front and frowning brow is successfully
maintained even while coaxings, fondlings, and
tit-bits are being offered — is this sensational?
To ally oneself with pitiful intriguers; to
purchase hirelings who, having played fetch and
carry to one set of masters, are ready to transfer
their venal and shameful services to the highest
bidder with a cheerful unscrupulousness that
such light o' loves only know — is this
sensational? Is it sensational to pander, palter,
truckle, and deceive; to hush up cruelty and
brutality to the helpless, frauds on the
ratepayers, and dishonesty to the poor? Is it
sensational to bid for political support by throwing
the judicial mantle over parochial misdeeds?
Is it sensational to make active sympathy with
suffering, a matter for punishment; and selfish
indifference the key to favour and reward? Is
it sensational to blow hot and cold, to reprove
bluffly, and cringe servilely; to degrade a
Christian's duty into a charlatan's trick; to abet the
oppressor, and use the giant's strength against
the oppressed? Which was sensational, the
dynasty converting " the negation of God into a
system of government," or the statesman who
called down the indignation of Europe on its
atrocities ? Let Mr. Hardy give us benighted
public writers information on such points as
these.

Sensational writing in the newspapers!
Why, the right honourable gentleman is surely
contributing sensational writing for to-morrow's
issue by the yard. That he and the party of
obstruction should eat the leek by meekly
appropriating the views and arguments used
by their opponents when such measures as
the Houseless Poor Act and the Union
Chargeability Bill were proposed and carried in their
teeth; that the love of place should awaken a
sense of justice; that those " carrying the
bag" should have been whipped into even a
semblance of caring for the poor, is surely
sensational enough for common readers. It is as
the public defender of the system, and the censor
of those public witnesses whose evidence is
not hired, rather than as the man responsible
for the particular acts alluded to, that Mr.
Hardy stands self-accused; and such writers as
respect themselves and their vocation are not
likely to forget his words. Running with the
hare and bunting with the hounds is not always
a successful policy, and it is useful to observe
how the measure introduced is a practical
refutation to the charge made; how every useful
clause in it can be directly traced to the influence
of independent comment and suggestion;
how the tacit admissions of the speaker are
damnatory to the expensive sham he
represents. The flippancy which would propitiate
the guardian class at the expense not merely of
humanity but honesty, is inexpressibly shocking;
and with this before one, the bill itself,
useful as many of its provisions are, seems
like a bribe thrown half contemptuously to an
irritated and long-suffering public, rather than
a conscientiously devised remedy for flagrant
abuse.

Let us accept Mr. Gathorne Hardy's
challenge, and by recapitulating the facts he takes
exception to, grope darkly for his definition of
the word " sensational." Selecting the
workhouse he quotes as an example, what do we
find its discipline and internal arrangements
to have been? Carpet-beating carried on as a
trade among its infirmary wards; the dust and
flue settling upon the sick and dying, aggravating
their sufferings and hastening their end; a
broken-down potboy employed as nurse, who
trembled from sheer debility when spoken to;
patients unable to move in bed without assistance,
and help refused them by the guardians in
defiance of the entreaties of their own medical
officer; the beer, wine, and spirits provided to
keep body and soul together, habitually stolen
from the wretched patients by pauper wardsmen