old gentleman. I see that for the month of January last he foretold us that the Government would meet with determined and persistent opposition. He warned us that there would be much sickness about, and that rheumatism would discover its old victims. How does he know these things? Is it that the stars really do communicate with him, or does he 'feel it in his bones,' as the saying is up North?
During February, he mentioned, the weather would be unsettled. He concluded:
'The word Taxation will have a terrible significance for both Government and people this month.'
Really, it is quite uncanny. In March:
'Theatres will do badly during the month.'
There seems to be no keeping anything from Old Moore. In April 'much dissatisfaction will be expressed among Post Office employees.' That sounds probable, on the face of it. In any event, I will answer for our local postman.
In May 'a wealthy magnate is going to die.' In June there is going to be a fire. In July 'Old Moore has reason to fear there will be trouble.'
I do hope he may be wrong, and yet somehow I feel a conviction that he won't be. Anyhow, one is glad it has been put off till July.
In August 'one in high authority will be in danger of demise.' In September 'zeal' on the part of persons mentioned 'will outstrip discretion.' In October Old Moore is afraid again. He cannot avoid a haunting suspicion that 'Certain people will be victimized by extensive fraudulent proceedings.'
In November 'the public Press will have its columns full of important news.' The weather will be 'adverse,' and 'a death will occur in high circles.' This makes the second in one year. I am glad I do not belong to the higher circles.
[How does he do it?]
In December Old Moore again foresees trouble, just when I was hoping it was all over. 'Frauds will come to light, and death will find its victims.'
And all this information is given to us for a penny.
The palmist examines our hand. 'You will go a journey,' he tells us. It is marvellous! How could he have known that only the night before we had been discussing the advisability of taking the children to Margate for the holidays?
'There is trouble in store for you,' he tells us, regretfully, 'but you will get over it.' We feel that the future has no secret hidden from him.
We have 'presentiments' that people we love, who are climbing mountains, who are fond of ballooning, are in danger.
The sister of a friend of mine who went out to the South African War as a volunteer had three presentiments of his death. He came home safe and sound, but admitted that on three distinct occasions he had been in imminent danger. It seemed to the dear lady a proof of everything she had ever read.
Another friend of mine was waked in the middle of the night by his wife, who insisted that he should dress himself and walk three miles across a moor because she had had a dream that something terrible was happening to a bosom friend of hers. The bosom friend and her husband were rather indignant at being waked at two o'clock in the morning, but their indignation was mild compared with that of the dreamer on learning that nothing was the matter. From that day forward a coldness sprang up between the two families.
I would give much to believe in ghosts. The interest of life would be multiplied by its own square power could we communicate with the myriad dead watching us from their mountain summits. Mr. Zangwill, in a poem that should live, draws for us a pathetic picture of blind children playing in a garden, laughing, romping. All their lives they have lived in darkness; they are content. But, the wonder of it, could their eyes by some miracle be opened!
[Blind Children playing in a World of Darkness.]
May not we be but blind children, suggests the poet, living in a world of darkness?laughing, weeping, loving, dying?knowing nothing of the wonder round us?
The ghosts about us, with their god-like faces, it might be good to look at them.
But these poor, pale-faced spooks, these dull-witted, table-thumping spirits: it would be sad to think that of such was the kingdom of the Dead.
CHAPTER XVII
[parents and Their Teachers.]
My heart has been much torn of late, reading of the wrongs of Children. It has lately been discovered that Children are being hampered and harassed in their career by certain brutal and ignorant persons called, for want of a better name, parents. The parent is a selfish wretch who, out of pure devilment, and without consulting the Child itself upon the subject, lures innocent Children into the world, apparently for the purpose merely of annoying them. The parent does not understand the Child when he has got it; he does not understand anything, not much. The only person who understands the Child is the young gentleman fresh from College and the elderly maiden lady, who, between them, produce most of the literature that explains to us the Child.
The parent does not even know how to dress the Child. The parent will persist in dressing the Child in a long and trailing garment that prevents the Child from kicking. The young gentleman fresh from College grows almost poetical in his contempt. It appears that the one thing essential for the health of a young child is that it should have perfect freedom to kick. Later on the parent dresses the Child in short clothes, and leaves bits of its leg bare. The elderly maiden Understander of Children, quoting medical opinion, denounces us as criminals for leaving any portion of that precious leg uncovered. It appears that the partially uncovered leg of childhood is responsible for most of the disease that flesh is heir to.
Then we put it into boots. We 'crush its delicately fashioned feet into hideous leather instruments of torture.' That is the sort of phrase that is hurled at us! The picture conjured up is that of some fiend in human shape, calling itself a father, seizing some helpless cherub by the hair, and, while drowning its pathetic wails for mercy beneath roars of demon laughter, proceeding to bind about its tender bones some ancient curiosity dug from the dungeons of the Inquisition.
If the young gentleman fresh from College or the maiden lady Understander could be, if only for a month or two, a father! If only he or she could guess how gladly the father of limited income would reply,
'My dear, you are wrong in saying that the children must have boots. That is an exploded theory. The children must not have boots. I refuse to be a party to crushing their delicately fashioned feet into hideous leather instruments of torture. The young gentleman fresh from College and the elderly maiden Understander have decided that the children must not have boots. Do not let me hear again that out-of-date word?boots.'
If there were only one young gentleman fresh from College, one maiden lady Understander teaching us our duty, life would be simpler. But there are so many young gentlemen from College, so many maiden lady Understanders, on the job?if I may be permitted a vulgarism; and as yet they are not all agreed. It is distracting for the parent anxious to do right. We put the little dears into sandals, and then at once other young gentlemen from College, other maiden lady Understanders, point to us as would-be murderers. Long clothes are fatal, short clothes are deadly, boots are instruments of torture, to allow children to go about with bare feet shows that we regard them as Incumbrances, and, with low cunning, are seeking to be rid of them.
[Their first attempt.]
I knew a pair of parents. I am convinced, in spite of all that can be said to the contrary, they were fond of their Child; it was their first. They were anxious to do the right thing. They read with avidity all books and articles written on the subject of Children. They read that a Child should always sleep lying on its back, and took it in turns to sit awake o' nights to make sure that the Child was always right side up.
But another magazine told them that Children allowed to sleep lying on their backs grew up to be idiots. They were sad they had not read of this before, and started the Child on its right side. The Child, on the contrary, appeared to have a predilection for the left, the result being that neither the parents nor the baby itself for the next
