attempt is made to try these doctrines by the test of practical application, the grand federal object is submerged under a flood of local objections and secti onal interests. A curious example of this sort of treatment of the federal question may be instanced in relation to the proceedings of the late conference in Melbourne. A disease of the vine, carrying with it sweeping destruction, had made its appearance in some of the vineyards in the district of Geelong. Both South Australia and New South Wales, as winemaking countries, had as much to fear from the spread of this disease as Victoria had, and they joined with Victoria in the expression of an opinion that the cost of eradicating it should be borne in equal proportions by the three colonies, taking care, however, to make it a condition that in the event of the disease appearing in either of the other colonies, the same principle of jointly sharing the expense of its eradication should be applied, This seemed to be a matter of common concernment to the three colonies, and one in which the federal principle, to a limited extent, might be brought into play. But in all the three colonies it has been spoken of as an adroit move on the part of Mr. Berry (who happens to represent the town of Geelong) in the special interest of his winemaking constituents. The astute Premier of Victoria had managed to steal a march upon the representatives of South Australia and New South Wales, and to inveigle them into paying the cost of stamping out the phylloxera vastatrix from the vineyards of the men who returned him to Parliament. I do not suppose that I shall be accused of making any improper revelation in saying that this proposal did not emanate from Mr. Berry at all. It was held that the three colonies had equal wine-growing interests, that the disease was a common enemy to all alike, and that the federal feeling might be naturally invoked in attacking it in its cradle. It was further held that if the three colonies acted together in the matter, they ought to act on a footing of equality. Hence the resolution, which was moved on behalf of South Australia, and seconded on behalf of New South Wales. As a matter of fact, I believe Mr. Berry not only had no special hand in the passing of the resolution, but that he has no vineyards in his particular electorate.

This circumstance is not adverted to from any querulous feeling of complaint against the press, or from any desire to deprecate the keenest discussion. But, assuredly, the federal movement can only be helped onward by the cultivation of a sober and generous public

opinion. Federation will not come upon us full grown and perfectly organised with a people thrust together in harmony, by one magical stroke, to accept it with open arms. The ground must be prepared by slow and delicate processes, and the fourth estate can make good its honoured title by few higher services than by vindicating the federal cause in its infancy from mean suspicions and party jealousies.

It may be justly maintained that every occasion for bringing the ruling minds of Australia into consultation, whatever may be its apparent fruits, will be an occasion for advancing the cause of federation. As men gain a better knowledge of each other, they will desire to gain a better knowledge of each other's country. From the examination of one question in a broader light, they will accustom themselves to the contemplation of other questions in a broader light. By estimating the advantages of co-operation in a given case, they will the sooner be prepared to admit the general benefits of permanent union. There is no fear of mischief arising from too many conferences which, irrespective of their immediate uses, may be regarded as the natural nurseries of the federal principle.

The feeling of intercolonial agreement must precede the action of intercolonial co-operation. If the Australian communities were one in sentiment, the Australian Governments would be one in policy. We may not hope to reach that condition, but we may strive for the nearest approach to it. However far off we may be forced to halt, any advance made will be better than no progress. We may not be able to flatter ourselves that a federated Australia is near at hand, but we may do much in our own day, and perhaps most in smallest things, to promote and perpetuate a friendly international feeling throughout Australia.

No doubt, the desire for immediate and present success, which is the master-passion of colonisation, is the principal obstacle to the federal movement. The feeling which so often displays itself in a country town, when the erection of a school or hospital is delayed for a year by the unseemly contentions of local factions for the expenditure in their own quarter, is the same feeling, in its ruder development, which rises in higher places to obstruct the progress of federation. Each wants to be first in the race. The sources of national life are not sufficiently cleared of the mud of local interests for the stream to flow uninterruptedly and freely. On a former occasion, I have contended that, but for these overweighting sectional interests, there is no obstacle arising out of our social con

dition, or our material circumstances, to two or more of these colonies joining hands and constituting one powerful nation tomorrow. When the time is ripe for a United Australia, a smaller number of powerful consolidated British states would be able to enter into federation more freely and securely than a larger number of small and weakly-organised ones. The union of two or more at an earlier date would not stand in the way of, but lead the way to, the federation of all eventually. But, in the meantime, if we persistently proceed under our separate political systems and our antagonistic laws, much may be done on a common ground of agreement. Beyond all question, there is ground for agreement for action in concert. If we cannot marry, let us live like friends. If we must cling to our separate systems of government, let a more wide-seeing governing spirit liberalise and elevate our separate systems. Victoria, or New South Wales, or Queensland will rise the higher by keeping in view Australia. If we cannot have a federal parliament, let our separate parliaments agree to a system of federal laws. On many questions, some of which have been broadly pointed out by the proceedings of the Melbourne Conference, the legislation of the different colonies might be one in spirit and in letter. Among the wonders and glories of the next decade it is to be fervently hoped that a noble Australian spirit, strengthening and drawing closer the ties of consanguinity, will animate the whole of the Australian colonies.

HENRY PARKES.

ON THE SYSTEM OF COTTAGE HOSPITALS.

IN the recent meetings of the Social Science Congress, the subject of hospital reform was discussed from several points of view. The present system was stated to be costly and demoralising, to be largely taken advantage of by persons who are not entitled to benefit by it, and above all, to fail in attaining the main object, viz., that of healing the sick in the best possible manner.

Various methods were proposed by different writers and speakers of dealing with these defects and shortcomings, among which the system of cottage hospitals, now largely adopted in England, was put forward as meeting many of the objections to the old system, and possessing some special advantages.

Necessarily, the discussion only skimmed the surface of this important subject, and the several different aspects it presented could only be lightly touched; it is proposed, therefore, in this paper, to examine a little more closely into it, especially with reference to cottage hospitals, and to the principles by which we ought to be actuated in dealing with our charities.

Dr. Jamieson's paper on hospital reform was chiefly directed to financial matters; he contended that the management was extravagant, and the charities grossly imposed upon by persons in easy circumstances. The Rev. C. T. Perks, Dr. Graham, Dr. Cutts, and Dr. Ryan spoke in much the same strain; while Mr. Gillbee, in his moderate and sensible reply, on behalf of the hospital management, admitted the accusations, acknowledged their inability to remedy them, and further made the remarkable statement that a majority of cases would be better treated at home, where domestic surroundings would contribute to the patient's happiness.

Here, then, we have, on the part of the medical profession, a full recognition of these facts:-that hospitals as at present conducted

are costly; that they are necessarily subject to imposition, which they are unable to detect; and that, as curative institutions, they are not so effective as the treatment which a labouring man could receive in his own home, where, instead of the desolate and monotonous ward of thirty or forty beds, he would be attended with more happy associations.

The difficulties of dealing with these defects are, first, that all large institutions are of necessity costly; the checks and counterchecks, the large administrative staff, and numerous attendants, make economy an impossibility; secondly, that the detection of imposture would require an inquisitorial and expensive system of examination into the circumstances of the patients and their friends, for the complaint is not only that persons of sufficient means obtain relief, but that persons whose relatives are well able to help them, receive charity from the public instead of obtaining assistance from their own family; now, where is such an inquiry to end, or how could it be conducted? The third consideration is by far the most important that there are defects inherent to the system, and inseparable from large hospitals, which destroy their efficacy in the healing of the sick. There is first of all the now universally accepted law that the aggregation of disease intensifies it, and even creates disease in new forms; this ought to be sufficient in itself to condemn the system. Then there is the mental effect, which is equally acknowledged by our most eminent physicians to be supreme. Even in organic disease, the action of the mind upon the body is great, and in fevers, &c., life or death hang upon the issue. When the skill of the physician has controlled the complaint, and the careful nurse has done her utmost, the ultimate recovery of the sufferer depends mainly upon the cheerful influences which can be brought to bear upon him.

In the face of all these serious and acknowledged defects, would it not be well, before extending the present system, building new large hospitals and enlarging existing institutions, to inquire into the operations of the cottage hospitals, which are now generally introduced into country districts in England, and ascertain whether they do not meet the exigency of giving charitable aid to the sick poor in a more satisfactory way than has as yet been attained by any other means?

Referring to Mr. Burdett's complete and interesting work on cottage hospitals, we find that there are about two hundred and fifty established in England, and the statistics which are presented