It was reported that many children slept out at night, afraid to go home on account of the small amount they had earned; that they stole, gambled, "and that the girls had sunk yet lower in order to raise sufficient money to bring home." A discussion of the sweated industries is unnecessary, as the abuses of child labor in our own cities have made the American reader familiar with the shocking conditions reported to the English Commission. But it may be instructive to those who have believed that agricultural employment is free from objection, that the Commission found children in the fruit and vegetable gardens and hop fields, working under conditions that were a menace to health and an effectual bar to education.

Recent attacks made upon the work of the National Child Labor Committee in America, on the ground that more than a million of the 1,750,000 children reported as wageearners are in agriculture and therefore in no need of social protection, will doubtless have the effect of inviting special attention to a form of industry which, while less disastrous in its effects upon the average worker, still offers so many dangers to juvenile health, virtue, and education as to demand an exhaustive investigation.

Since the report of the English Commission in 1901, which led to the enactment of the law of 1903, a large number of municipalities have passed local ordinances that have greatly reduced child labor, especially in street trades. The Home Office has been somewhat conservative in approving these local ordinances-having declined to accept the very advanced by-laws passed by the London County Council, although the evidence seemed entirely to justify those enactments. Still the regulation of street trading through the use of permits, badges, and educational restrictions, is so far in advance of anything we have developed in America as to put our best achievements to shame.

A glance at English factory history, viewing the successive steps in legislation as well as the wide field of industrial activity still entirely unrestricted, presents a con

vincing argument for the collective control in every country of all occupations in which young children are employed. But a ready acquiescence in such control can be expected only as a result of accurate knowledge of existing conditions. Even in Massachusetts, where the protection of the American child has gone farthest, one will observe a note of anxiety among the friends of child labor reform, lest the virtue of that state should militate against her industrial interests it still being the popular view that child employment is profitable and its restriction an altruistic virtue.

That government regulation is not a deterrent in industry is amply shown in England and should put an end to the ancient cry that regulation ruins trade. The factoriesparticularly the cotton factories, which have been the special object of "parliamentary attack" have gone steadily forward improving their machinery, methods and equipment, as well as the conditions under which employes labor,while the unregulated industries have either not advanced, or have positively fallen, until today, in London, Paris, New York, Pittsburg and Chicago, alike, these crowded tenement workshops house ignorance, poverty, vice and fever. Every great industrial country can demonstrate the truth of the statement made by the Committee of the House of Lords in 1889 that the worst conditions, the longest hours, and the lowest wages exist in the domestic workshops, which we in America as well as they in England have been so concerned to leave free from any government regulation.*

*The author desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to "A History of Factory Legislation" (Hutchins & Harrison, London, 1903), from which facts not otherwise credited have been gleaned.

"The Huguenot"

By W. Bertrand Stevens

[John Everett Millais was born on June 8, 1829, in Portland Place, Southampton. At the age of eleven he was admitted as a student at the Royal Academy where he remained for six years, winning every prize for which he competed. He became an Associate of the Academy in 1853, a full Academician in 1863, and President in 1896. He was created a Baronet in 1885. On August 19, 1896, he died and was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral, London.]

At the time Rossetti was exhibiting the "Ecce Ancilla Domini" Sir John Millais had entered at the Royal Academy his "Christ in the Home of His Parents." Concerning this picture Charles Dickens wrote in Household Words:

"You come ... to the contemplation of a Holy Family. You will have the goodness to discharge from your minds all postRaphael ideas, all religious aspirations, all elevating thoughts; all tender, awful, sorrowful, ennobling, sacred, graceful, or beautiful associations, and to prepare yourselves as befits such a subject— pre-Raphaelly considered-for the lowest depths of what is mean, odious, repulsive, and repelling."

This was but one of the vehement attacks made upon the Brotherhood as soon as their revolutionary aims became known. The "Christ in the House of His Parents" was sold, but to a dealer on whose hands it remained for a long period. The next year Rossetti did not exhibit, Holman Hunt tried with one picture and Millais with three. The storm of abuse raged more furiously than ever until the defensive letters signed "The Author of Modern Painters" first appeared in the Times. Then it was that the forces of the enemy began to waver.

Millais' early pictures in which he followed the PreRaphaelite principles were, perhaps, the least successful of any of his works. Within a comparatively short time after the formation of the Brotherhood he began to realize that it was not in the application of those principles that his power lay. But it was not until "The Vale of Rest" appeared in 1859 that he completely forswore the creed of the Pre-Raphaelites, or as he expressed it "emerged from his

"The Huguenot"

By W. Bertrand Stevens

[John Everett Millais was born on June 8, 1829, in Portland Place, Southampton. At the age of eleven he was admitted as a student at the Royal Academy where he remained for six years, winning every prize for which he competed. He became an Associate of the Academy in 1853, a full Academician in 1863, and President in 1896. He was created a Baronet in 1885. On August 19, 1896, he died and was buried in St. Paul's Cathedral, London.]

At the time Rossetti was exhibiting the "Ecce Ancilla Domini" Sir John Millais had entered at the Royal Academy his "Christ in the Home of His Parents." Concerning this picture Charles Dickens wrote in Household Words:

"You come ... to the contemplation of a Holy Family. You will have the goodness to discharge from your minds all postRaphael ideas, all religious aspirations, all elevating thoughts; all tender, awful, sorrowful, ennobling, sacred, graceful, or beautiful associations, and to prepare yourselves as befits such a subject— pre-Raphaelly considered-for the lowest depths of what is mean, odious, repulsive, and repelling."

This was but one of the vehement attacks made upon the Brotherhood as soon as their revolutionary aims became known. The "Christ in the House of His Parents" was sold, but to a dealer on whose hands it remained for a long period. The next year Rossetti did not exhibit, Holman Hunt tried with one picture and Millais with three. The storm of abuse raged more furiously than ever until the defensive letters signed "The Author of Modern Painters" first appeared in the Times. Then it was that the forces of the enemy began to waver.

Millais' early pictures in which he followed the PreRaphaelite principles were, perhaps, the least successful of any of his works. Within a comparatively short time after the formation of the Brotherhood he began to realize that it was not in the application of those principles that his power lay. But it was not until "The Vale of Rest" appeared in 1859 that he completely forswore the creed of the Pre-Raphaelites, or as he expressed it "emerged from his