and in writing, as Miss Sorabji, had been kind enough to speak. She had stated that people had recently put forward the picturesque side of Hindu life, and that everything had been done to palliate and excuse the existing state of things. But he maintained that the state of things in India did not call for excuse or palliation, that a good and suitable state of things existed, and there was no greater need for excuses in India than elsewhere. She had also stated that if reforms which had been put forward, such as her purdahnishin scheme, were not intrinsically good they would die. It was true that they might, but it was equally true that they might be adopted. In that case he thought criticism was a good thing, and was sure that a lady of Miss Sorabji's enterprise and intellect must know that it was better that the opposite side should be put forward, even by a person so unequal to the task as himself, rather than it should be left unstated. She had also stated that the Legislative Councils would do everything that was right. Having been a member of the Legislative Council, he knew that they were com. posed of human beings, and that they would not resent, and sometimes needed, a little outside assistance. When Miss Sorabji spoke of the hardships of the reformers, there was nobody in the room who sympathised with her more sincerely than he did himself. He sympathised with people who had the courage of their convictions (of whom Miss Sorabji was a shining example), and who stood up against all the difficulties with which they had to contend, but it did not follow that they were on that account the more competent to reform the customs and religions they had left. He also wished to point out to Miss Sorabji that he had quoted other authors in support of his positions. He quoted Mr. Crooke, for the North-West Provinces; Mr Clarke, for Bengal; and also Captain Temple, now Sir Richard Temple, for Upper India. In reply to Miss Sorabji's statement that few purdah cases were brought into Court, he believed that the fewer cases were brought into Court the better it would be for India, whether the cases were those of the comparatively few purdahnishins, or of the multitudinous folk who were no more purdah people than ourselves.

On the motion of the CHAIRMAN, a hearty vote. of thanks was accorded to Mr. Rees.

Mr. T. DURANT BEIGHTON writes:-As one of those who were precluded by lapse of time from taking part in the discussion of Mr. Rees's interesting and suggestive paper, perhaps you will kindly allow me very briefly to indicate what I intended to have said had time permitted. I will endeavour to imitate the modesty of the civilian of whom Lord Harris spoke, and confine my remarks to that portion of India with which I am best acquainted, viz., the Lower Provinces of Bengal. I was surprised during the course of Mr. Rees's paper, and still more so in the debate which

followed, to find that the quality which is, in my opinion, alike the crowning virtue and the most noticeable feature of Hindu domestic life was absolutely ignored. Lord Harris spoke of the Hindu characteristics of temperance, patience, and courtesy, but all the speakers omitted to lay stress on their humanity, as shown by the uniform kindness to children which beautifies the family life of the Hindu. I have no sympathy with those who constantly disparage their own countrymen, but the frequency of illtreatment, neglect and cruelty towards children by parents in this country is undoubtedly a blot on the national escutcheon and a disgrace to our civilisation and Christianity. But there is no room for the operations of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Bengal, for the crime doest not exist; its officers would be idle and their work a sinecure. During my 26 years of service as Magistrate, Judge, and Member of Council not a single instance has come before me either in my public or private capacity of the illtreatment and neglect of children which form so pathetic a part in the pictures of domestic life in this country presented by the daily press. Nor is the systematic illtreatment of women common in Bengali households. Murders and violent assaults no doubt occur, and are due in most cases to that teterrima causa, jealousy, but criminologists will agree that this distorted and morbid product of a natural and even laudable sentiment is a less heinous motive for crime than others where cupidity is concerned, and one which is hardly a stigma on the nationalcharacter. As a study in sociology, it would be. interesting to trace the sources and development of these kindly parental and conjugal relations. Exigencies of space compel me to restrict myself to the suggestion that the origin is to be found in the dogmatic theology of Manu, to whom Mr. Rees has made such frequent reference. To those who doubt the value of the ethics of Manu in moulding the 'character of Hindus in the direction of humanity I would venture to commend the eloquent words of Sir W. Jones in his preface to the Institutes, in which he speaks of "the spirit of sublime devotion, of benevolence to mankind, and of amiable tenderness to all sentient creatures" which pervade the work. But the priceless spiritual benefits conferred on a pious Hindu by a son or a daughter's son must inevitably enhance the value of offspring and add a powerful stimulus to the ties of natural affection. [cf. Manu ix. §§ 137, 138, and 139.]

Into the controversy between Mr. Rees and Sir W. Lee-Warner I have no space to enter, but I demur to Mr. Rees's proposition that "caste is Hinduism and Hinduism is caste." As well might a Roman Catholic say that the observance of mass and confession was Christianity. Conformity with the 'rules of caste may be evidence that the conformist is an orthodox or even a religious Hindu, just as the compliance with accepted rules may be one step towards showing that a man is a devout Roman

Catholic.

But both the Hindu and the Roman would alike protest against this narrow creed being of the essence of their religion. Nor can I at all agree with what I understand to be Mr. Rees's view of the Queen's Proclamation of 1858, if I am right in supposing that he considers the abolition of Sati and other Acts passed prior and subsequent to that Proclamation which compel Hindus as well as all other subjects of the Empire to abandon practices which conflict with the general criminal law, as a violation of the guarantee to safeguard their customs and religion. Besides the abolition of Sati, the Legislature has within the last century put an end to human sacrifice, the exposure of children for destruction by sharks and alligators on the banks of rivers, the murder of so-called sorcerers and witches, the practice of dharna, the burying alive of lepers, and the mutilations which formerly attended the celebration of the Charak Puja or swing festival. I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that I have dealt at length with all these practices and their origin in an article published some years ago, called "Obsolete Crime in Bengal and its Modern Aspects." Will it be believed for a moment that not a vestige of what Mr. Walter Bagehot calls "verifiable progress" in morality has been established in India among the masses that have been subject to our rule for so many generations? Every one of the practices above mentioned can be justified by scores of texts from the shastras, but I doubt if anyone will seriously maintain that the authoritative prohibition of these crimes by the Government is regarded by the most fanatical of modern Hindus as prejudicially interfering with his customs or his caste, or that he would not scout the suggestion of returning to these and kindred outrages against civilised life, even if the prohibition were removed.

One word more. In the difference of opinion which manifested itself between Mr. Rees and Miss Sorabji, whose high intelligence and charm of manner add to the value of any debate in which she takes part, I entirely agree with Mr. Rees. Notwithstanding the unusual honour of large type which was accorded to Miss Sorabji in the Times, I think the intrusion of an outsider into the domestic circle, especially if armed with the ægis of official sanction, would be useless for the purpose suggested, and would tend to subvert that mutual confidence and affection which is the greatest charm of Hindu life. Where purdahnishin women are capable of entering into legal business (and where they are not, cadit quæstio) their customs give them ample opportunity of discussing matters viva voce at any length with friends, lawyers, and officials, their faces remaining hidden behind the purdah. This fact must be known, by his own experience, to every prominent official in India.

Mr. VISHVANATH P. VAIDYA writes testifying to the correctness of Mr. Rees's description of a Hindu home. He adds :-Lord Harris cited two instances

of prominent Hindu reformers bowing before the influence of caste. Could they have done otherwise with any advantage to the society to which they belonged, and which they were working hard to improve? The only answer is in the negative. They acted upon the well-known principle taught in England by Edmund Burke. If they wanted to lead they must follow the feelings of the people whom they wanted to lead. Acting otherwise would have meant self isolation and annihilation of all their influence over those who would be guided by them. It is a self-sacrifice leaders have often to make. Mr. Rees is right in what he says about the condition of women in India. A woman is the ruler in the family. In domestic matters a husband should be, and often is, a subordinate. A Hindu lady may not be learned in books, may not discuss politics, yet she is an intelligent assistant, with supreme power in the house. To put her in any other light is doing injustice to Hindu society. I do not agree with Mr. Rees's views as to the study of philosophy in the colleges. Need I remind him that many native administrators in India were very good students of Indian philosophy?

NINTH ORDINARY MEETING. Wednesday, February 4, 1903; SIR GEORGE BIRDWOOD, K.C.I.E., C.S.I., in the chair.

The following candidates were proposed for election as members of the Society :—

Beisenberg, H., Rathcote, Pattison-r ad, Hampstead, N.W.

Bell, James, 34, Kensington-square, W., and Guildhall, E.C.

Daw, John Williams, M.I.M.M, Ashanti Goldfields. Corporation, Limited, 6, Southampton-street, Holborn, W.C.

Fraser, J. C., Messrs. Stephen, Fraser and Co., Limited, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.

Gould, Edward, care of Standard Bank, Barberton, East Transvaal, South Africa.

Mitchell, George, M.I.Mech.E., The Vacuum BrakeCompany, Limited, 32, Queen Victoria-street, E.C., and 59, Frances-road, Windsor.

Morgan, Edward Domett, A.I.E.E., 73, Wightmanroad, Harringay, N.

Munro, John, O.K. Copper Mine, via Mungana,. North Queensland, Australia.

Nanjiani, Khan Sahib K. R., Godhra, Panch Mahals, Bombay, India.

Quicke, William G., Assoc.M. Inst.C.E., Gas Works, Perth, Western Australia.

Tilden, Douglas, 1545, Webster-street, Oakland, California, U.S.A.

Townsend, E. Ross, Agricultural Offices, Salisbury, Rhodesia, South Africa.

The following candidates were balloted for and duly elected members of the Society: Atchison, Arthur F. T., Cooper's-hill, Englefieldgreen, Surrey.

Cater, Herbert Elliott, B.A., Southdown, The Downs, Wimbledon, S.W.

Day, Harry Daborn, Railway Approach, Godalming, Surrey.

Eliot, Sir Charles Norton Edgcumbe, K.C.M.G.,

C.B., Government-house, Mombasa, East Africa. Fletcher, Banister Flight, 29, New-bridge-street, E.C. Ford, Albert, Welsbach Light Company of Australasia, Limited, Wellington, New Zealand. Isherwood, William Herbert, 18, Wrangthornterrace, Hyde-park, Leeds.

Russell, Charles Bartlett, 16, Teignmouth-road, Brondesbury, N.W.

Toogood, John F., F.R.G.S., Bipposu Mines, Ltd., Ashanti, West Africa.

Walsh, Albert, P.O. Box 39, Cape Town, Scut'ı Africa.

Wilson, William, 1, Belmont-street, Chalk Farm, N.W.

The paper read was—

METHODS OF MOSAIC CONSTRUCTION.

By W. L. H. HAMILTON.

It is now more than sixty years ago since the revival in this country of mosaic as an architectural adjunct may be said to have begun. In 1840, Mr. Blashfield endeavoured to produce decorative pavements, and in this endeavour he was assisted by Mr. Minton and Messrs. Maw and Co., who succeeded in making excellent material for that purpose. Following Mr. Blashfield (and to a certain extent working in co-operation with him) came Sir Digby Wyatt, who, in 1848, published a work on the subject, and gave much practical assistance to the manufacturers who were engaged in producing the tesseræ. Their efforts appear to have been mainly concentrated on the production of pavements, geometrical in design, and made of such materials as asphalte, coloured cement, and compressed china clay. The results obtained were so satisfactory that on the announcement of the intended exhibition of 1862, Messrs. Maw and Co. decided to move a step in advance of what had hitherto been done, and to produce a pictorial pavement in several colours. They therefore commissioned Sir Digby Wyatt to design a pavement of that character for them which they executed in tesseræ of nearly a hundred different tints made by themselves;

and as Sir Digby Wyatt states "this was the first practical effort to revive pictorial mosaic amongst us."

Such was the position of the mosaic art in England in 1862. It shows that a certain interest in the art had been created, and this interest was stimulated by Sir Digby Wyatt, who in that year read a valuable and most interesting paper before the Royal Institute of British Architects on "Pictorial Mosaics as an Architectural Embellishment," dealing with the subject (as he himself states) from the point of view from which we may best realise what architects have to learn and to do, in order to effect a practical revival of the art at the present day," and with this aim in view he gave the main historical phases of pictorial mosaic, and dwelt upon the various scopes and difficulties of the art in its production and application.

Many artists and architects now gave serious attention to the revival of the art. The improvement in public taste, aided by an increased feeling for colour and decoration, gave encouragement to those who were interested in the revival, and it was not long before several eminent firms in this country succeeded in producing mosaics in enamel. The names of Messrs. Simpson and Sons, Messrs. Rust and Co., and Messrs. Harland, Fisher and Co., occur to me, as some of their full length figures are to be seen in the principal hall of the South Kensington Museum. But not until some years later were any important enamel mosaics executed in this country.

In Italy, the traditions of the workers in mosaic had been handed down through centuries, and although the art had fallen low, it had never altogether died out. About the year 1860, a poor glassblower of Murano, named Lorenzo Radi, with the love of his art strong within him, made efforts to improve the manufacture of enamels, and especially of gold mosaic, and in his necessity. he applied to a Venetian lawyer, Dr. Salviati, who found the means to enable him to continue his efforts in the production of the Smalti (or enamel), by means of which Radi was endeavouring to revive the mosaic art in Venice. In a small way these efforts were successful, but for want of means and prestige they would have resulted in failure, had not an artist of high merit and great social position extended to them a helping hand. I refer to the late Sir Austen Henry Layard a man who was not only an artist in the highest and broadest sense of the term, but who was also a distinguished diplomatist

and archæologist. From the moment he extended his protection to the revived industry, the success of that industry was assured. He, together, with a few other English gentlemen, provided the necessary capital. The business which had been established by Radi and Salviati, became their property, and was speedily merged into the concern which they then formed under the title of the "Venice and Murano Glass and Mosaic Company."

The first important commissions obtained by the company were the decoration of the Wolsey Chapel at Windsor and that of the Albert Memorial in Kensington-gardens. The general designs for both works were by Sir Gilbert Scott, and were carried out under his directions from the cartoons of Mr. John Clayton, of Messrs. Clayton and Bell.

About this time also were executed for the South Kensington Museum several full length figures from the designs of the late Lord Leighton, Sir Edward Poynter, P.R.A., Mr. Val Prinsep, R.A., and other distinguished artists.

In Westminster Abbey, the "Last Supper," over the communion table, was executed from the design by Mr. Clayton; and in St. Paul's Cathedral two of the large spandrils under the great dome were covered with mosaics from cartoons by Mr. George Frederick Watts and the late Alfred Stevens.

From that time to the present day much excellent work has been done in various parts of the United Kingdom, in the Colonies, and in America, by several well-known English firms of mosaists as well as by the Venetians, and the demand for mosaic decoration is steadily increasing. Of that there is no doubt; and the question of the hour is not whether mosaics should be executed, but how they should be executed so as to obtain the best results at the least possible cost. It is with a view to elucidating this question that I have prepared some notes on the methods of mosaic construction which I hope may be of interest, and may at the same time tend to remove misconception and prejudice.

Speaking broadly, there are two methods of construction :

(1) The Old Method, viz. :-That of fixing the tessera on the wall directly and one by

one.

(2) The New Method, whereby the mosaic is first executed on paper, and thence transferred to the wall.

The Old Method is simple enough; the wall destined to receive the mosaic is prepared with

cement, the cartoon is outlined on the cement, and the mosaists, with the cartoon before them, proceed to place the tessera on the wall one by one.

It is needless to say that under certain conditions the very finest mosaics can be-and even in recent times have been-produced by this method. The ancient mosaists it would seem invariably employed it, and probably no other process was known to them.

The first works executed in England by the Venetian mosaists were so executed, and the result was entirely successful, but it was soon made clear that unless some less expensive and more expeditious means could be devised for executing and fixing mosaics very little could be done to advance the art either in this country or elsewhere.

Anyone possessing a knowledge of mosaic art knows that it is futile to expect the production of a really good mosaic unless the work is carefully supervised by a properly qualified artist. Men no longer "work for the angels,” and even the best workmen require the supervision of the master. Where the artist is designer and mosaist in one, as were so many of the ancient mosaists, and where time and money are secondary considerations, the principal disadvantages of this method disappear; but it is rarely indeed that such a fortuitous combination of circumstances is to be met with. The artist who by reason of his genius and réputation, would be commissioned to design a scheme of mosaic decoration for some large cathedral or public building, would probably not be a mosaist in the sense of possessing a close technical knowledge of the art, and if he were, he could not be expected to overlook for several hours each day the workmen who are placing the tessera on the wall. Even supposing it were possible to secure so considerable a part of his time, the cost would necessarily be enormous. His designs and intentions have therefore to be carried out by another, who must be both artist and mosaist. Such men are not easy to find, and when it is remembered that any large firm of mosaists working by this method would require to retain on their staff many such artists, it will be seen that the difficulty presented is a very formidable one indeed.

Another difficulty which presents itself in the application of this method is the necessity of sending workmen from their homes to any part of the world where a mosaic is to be executed. In the first place it is difficult to get first-class workmen to leave their homes,

the cost of the mosaic. There are also difficulties which may, and in n any cases do, affect the quality of the work. The conditions under which a mosaist working on the spot has to carry on his work, are frequently well nigh insupportable. He is dependent on the climate of the country in which he finds himself, and even under the most favourable atmospheric conditions he must work in the imperfect light which comes to him through the shrouds and scaffolding by which he is surrounded: in winter he is chilled by the cold, and in summer he is half suffocated by

to be demolished and begun all over again, or, worse still, the defects are permitted to remain because the expense of removing them would be too great!

There are in addition technical difficulties into which I need not enter. Those I have cited are sufficient to indicate the reason which led the mosaists who 35 years ago revived the art, to the conclusion that unless some other process could be found, little proIgress could be made either in this country or abroad.

When one remembers how much that is