a treasurable possession. Or, again, the little volume of anonymous poems, entitled "Fancy's Following," issued in 1896, at once arrests attention by its beauty. In character and appearance it bears no relation to the Vale or Kelmscott books: the paper is of a faint rose-yellowish tinge, eminently restful to the eye; the type, though thin and disfigured by the long shape of the letter "s," is clear and sharply defined, with a certain quaintness of its own; the margins and the spacing are properly proportioned; there are no decorations beyond an unassuming border on the title-page and a tail-piece here and there. While guided by the correct principles of typographical art, Mr. Daniel works on independent methods; the result may best be summed up in the expression, grace and daintiness, unmarred by lack of strength. He stands, probably, an easy first among the purely private printers of the day; long study, aided by an artist's perception, has given an impress to his books which is individual and unique. From the very nature of the case, unfortunately, his achievements can never hope to win for themselves any widespread appreciation or acknowledgment.

Mr. Selwyn Image, again, although not strictly speaking a printer, has earned the commendation of every bibliophile by his attempts at improvement in bookmaking. It will be remembered that the Kelmscott edition of "Atalanta in Calydon" was more especially marked by the two pages of Greek type at its beginning. This type was borrowed by Morris for the occasion, having been designed by Mr. Image for the new issue of the "Phædo," published by Messrs. Macmillan in 1894. To those accustomed to the debased Greek characters in ordinary use, Mr. Image's fount may seem at first bewildering. But, with increasing acquaintance, its surpassing merit cannot fail to be perceived. Like Morris, Mr. Image, we are told, has made a thorough study of handwriting, and his type is a creation worthy of the finest models. His artistic instinct, indeed, is rarely at fault, whether he is designing type, initial letters, or a title-page. Mr. Andrew Lang's translation of "The Miracles of Madame Saint Katherine of Fierbois," published in 1897 by Messrs. Way and Williams, of Chicago, illustrates his fitness in these last respects. The lettering of the title-page, the initials, and the head-pieces are singularly harmonious and delicate, besides being conceived in a quite original manner. Were it not for the type, which is American, the volume would be an exceptionally beautiful specimen of press-work.

To particularise all those artistic spirits who have of late turned their attention to the printed book would be, at best, but an invidious task. The latest development, however, may be lightly touched on by way of fit conclusion. When one considers the present demand for black and white in art, it may seem like temerity to own to a love for colour; but when we remember that in nature everything possesses

colour, it may not, after all, appear unfitting that what we look at in our books should hold the mirror up to nature. The books of the first printers were frequently painted by the hand of the illuminator in the manner of the manuscript: a practice which circumstances quickly drove to be abandoned. Colour-printing is rarely satisfactory, and modern books have learnt to be content with black and white. Morris, it is true, printed two of the volumes of his Press in red and black and blue with unequivocal success, but he presumably did not care to re-introduce hand-painted borders and initial letters. In Miss Gloria Cardew, a young art student, a colourist has recently appeared who is capable of doing charming work in this direction. Years ago Mr. Ruskin taught that "we ought to love colour and to think nothing quite beautiful or perfect without it." Miss Cardew's efforts form one more attempt to revert to good individualistic handwork, as opposed to the mechanical methods of a time in which sixpenny magazines, crowded with process blocks, furnish the mental pabulum of millions. It is difficult to realise the effect of, say, one of the Vale books, with its initials and borders embellished with delicate tints, after the fashion of the ancient miniaturists. Among Miss Cardew's triumphs must especially be noted Mr. F. S. Ellis's "History of Reynard the Fox," a metrical version of the old English translation, with its fifty woodcut engravings after Mr. Walter Crane. These last, when decorated in gold and colours, in the medieval style, almost place the volume on a level with the illuminated manuscripts which were the glory of the monks of old.

To rival these with our nineteenth-century printed books is hardly possible, perhaps. But that a great revival in the art of typography and book decoration is not too much to hope for is apparent from the tendency to-day. Thirty years ago the productions of Messrs. Dent would hardly have been practicable; as it is, we barely notice, in our new familiarity, the revolution in bookmaking which is being enacted in our midst. Beautiful books may not be common, even now; at least it has been proved that they are possible. Not, let it be remembered, that Morris would have applied his rules to text-books or to ordinary works, or books of reference. The artist-printer is concerned only with producing works of art or literature in which everything is subservient to the perfect whole. "L'art est-il utile?" wrote the poet Baudelaire. "Oui. Pourquoi ? Parce qu'il est l'art."

ALBERT LOUIS COTTON.

THE DEFEAT OF THE OIL KINGS.

HE Select Committee of the House of Commons on Petroleum

dragged an inquiry

years which should have been finished in two, and has wasted another session by delaying its report until now. Its action is in harmony with the history of petroleum in Parliament, which has been a long chapter of delays, administrative mistakes, and legislative bungling. Before dealing with the peculiarities of some of the evidence submitted, and with the scheming of interested parties to secure the sympathy of the Committee, let us see why it was appointed, and what was the problem it had to solve. It was appointed to inquire into the dangers which arise from the use of petroleum oils, to find how accidents can be prevented or diminished, and the public better protected. Fires arising from petroleum-lamp accidents had become more frequent every year. Not a day passed but newspapers reported lamp accidents. A quarter of the deaths

from fire in London are directly due to these accidents, and the proportion of fatalities in other places is much the same when similar oil is used. The tragedies occur chiefly in the houses of the poor, where the cheapest oil and the worst lamps are used.

Fires from lamp accidents are the most dangerous of all outbreaks and spread with amazing rapidity. If a petroleum-lamp is accidentally overturned, carelessly extinguished, or blown out by the opening of a door, the oil may be ignited, or there is an explosion and the room is in flames. And the deaths which are officially recorded as caused by such fires-forty in London every year, and perhaps over two hundred in the country-do not represent the total number of victims, and are only a very small proportion of the fires attributable to this cause. In fact, the most fruitful cause of fires is lamp

accidents, and they are increasing with the growing use of cheap or inferior petroleum as the poor man's light. To find means of preventing these disasters, or of lessening their number, was the problem with which the Committee had to deal.

THE INTERESTS OF THE OIL TRADE.

The Committee met in the summer of 1891, under the chairmanship of the late Mr. Mundella. In the ordinary course of things it ought to have been reappointed at the beginning of the next session. It was not reappointed. No one took action. The chairman, who had ordered a special report on lamp accidents, did not move in the matter. The Home Office, which had in previous years shown so much anxiety to consult the interests of the trade and settle the question, remained inactive. One of the chief officers of the London County Council had been commissioned to make experiments on lamps and draw up a report. He had done so, but there was no committee to receive the results of his investigations. The County Council, which had public interests to consider, reminded the Home Office of its duty, and received a promise, towards the middle of the session, that the Committee would be reappointed. Owing, however, to the occurrence of the General Election, the Committee was not reappointed that year (1895), and did not resume its inquiry till the end of March 1896. One explanation given for the delay is that the oil interests had united, and had no desire to assist the Committee.

Things took a different turn in 1896. A contest between rival witnesses began. The Committee was assailed by paid witnesses, who gave evidence to suit the interests which they served. One set blamed the oil for the mischief, another put the responsibility on lamps. A few independent men of eminence, such as Lord Kelvin and Sir Henry Roscoe, came forward with indisputable scientific evidence tested by experience; but against them came the Government official witnesses with contradictory, inconsistent stories. The oil trade still acted as a unit. The whole business in this country was then practically under the control of the Anglo-American Oil Company, one of the numerous tentacles of that gigantic monopoly, the Standard Oil Trust. As the Committee the first year started on lamps, there was no reason why the Trust should interfere; but in 1896, when the evidence took another turn, the Trust determined, by the weight of its witnesses and the exercise of its influence, to overcome opposition and to capture the Committee. Agencies which the Trust set at work had destroyed a Bill in 1891, and as the oil trade had always got its way with Parliament, the Trust was quite confident of its success.

EASING THE WAY FOR THE OIL KINGS.

Here it may be appropriate to show how easy has been the conquest of England by the monopoly, and how convenient an outlet this country has proved for the most dangerous kind of oil which cannot find a ready market in America. The first protest against the introduction of dangerous American oil was made in 1868, and the capitulation of Parliament to the trade then has been the source of all the trouble since. Before a Select Committee on Fire Protection in 1867, Lord Playfair, Dr. Attfield, and other scientists, warned the people against low-flash American oils, then beginning to be largely imported, and showed the need for protection. Three chemistsDr. Attfield, Dr. Letheby, and Sir Frederick Abel-were asked to find a test which would exclude dangerous oils from general use. After experiments a test was fixed upon and included in a Bill. The test did not please the trade, and at the instance of its representatives, without experiments and without consulting the Committee or the chemists (except Sir Frederick Abel) who had fixed the system, it was altered by the Home Office. Mr. Peter Maclagan, who was chairman of the Committee, told the Select Committee on Petroleum last year that in a week after this Bill was published, "to my surprise and the surprise of many others, a Bill came out with a different test altogether." The Bill with the improvised test was passed, but it was unworkable. The influence of the oil trade prevented its amendment in a way which would have strengthened the test and increased public protection, until in 1871, when an Act was passed, which provided for a test which the trade considered harmless. This Act was renewed every year until 1879, pending a final settlement. In the meantime the inferior American oil was imported in larger quantities. The danger from its use became more apparent so much so that in 1879 an international congress was held at Bremen to consider what means should be taken, in the interest of the public safety, to prevent the use of dangerous American oils. Instead of Parliament fixing a test which would have given greater protection, it took another backward step. What is called the Abel close test of 73° Fahr. was invented. We shall see the significance of this test presently, but what I wish to. show now is that it was a retrograde measure which was welcomed by the trade. It was another mistake. No one knew better what ought to have been done than Dr. Attfield, and he told the Select Committee in 1896 that "the Abel test apparatus is good, but I think the test degree is a great mistake." He repeated that "reducing the point from 100° Fahr. was the mistake," and that the 73" is based on no intelligible principle that I can see"; further, the fixing it at that low standard was "reprehensible." Lord Kelvin, certainly an absolutely independent witness, said a "great mistake