A HISTORIC FIRE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2645, 29 October 1909, Page 5

A HISTORIC FIRE.

QUAINT NEWSPAPER. EXTRACTS. Almost exactly seventy-five years ago, that is to say on October 16, 1834, the Houses of Parliament in London were destroyed by fire. The Hon. Captain Baillie, M.L.C., who was rather a small bov at the time, living with his parents in Edge ware Road, remembers the event, and he has shown a “Dominion” representative a very interesting copy of the “'St. James Chronicle” n which the fire is reported at great length. The details of the fire, which is now chiefly memorable as having occasioned the erection of the present splendid Parliament House, scarcely call for repetition to-day, but a few notes and reflections from the old newspapers will be readable. “Journalese” was evidently both perpetrated and satirised in those days. Thus the “Chronicle’s” editorial on the disaster — “For the particulars we must refer to the reports to be found in our subsequent columns; and to the same fund of eloquence we must hand over the lovers of picturesque description. Wo would vainly compete with the gentlemen conversant in sketching such ‘calamitous conflagrations’ and deep in description of ‘the desolating progress of the devouring element. 1 Such ‘purpurei panni’ would only mock the plainness or our homespun, style ; but 'in the reports they are quite homogeneous with the affecting diction of our penny-a-line auxiliaries, and completely suit with the assurance of what, we suppose, is very true, ‘the obscuration of the lunar light by the flagrant column of ascending flame. 1 But though in the part- of description we can avail ourselves to such foreign, aids, the example of contemporaries warns us that we must improve the occasion by moral reflections of our own.” The “moral reflections” may be “cut”' —seventy-five years afterwards —but the last paragraph of the article is worth rescuing. Some of it will remind some people of much more recent events nearer at hand: —“His Majesty, it is understood, has/ offered the new Palace at Pimlico for the use of the two houses. This is considerate and kind, like the spontaneous acts of the Sovereign—but it would be exceedingly ungenerous to accept the offer, when it is notorious that the acceptance of it would leave the Sovereign without any decent accommodation. Besides it would be a slight upon the Crown, which might not to be endured, particularly at the present moment, to displace the King of England from his palace in'order to accommodate Mr. Silk Buckingham and Lord Durham, Messrs. Gully, O’Connell, Hume, etc., etc. Something akin to the same objection seems to forbid the application of the great rooms in St. James’ Palace to the meeting of the two Houses. The penitentiary at Millbank has been suirgested. It is the nearest public building of suitable capacity to the old site, and might be thought in other respects a/ fit destination.” And here is a taste of the penny-a-liner’s quality:—“We deeply regret to say that if this dreadful event was the work of an incendiary, there were not wanting thousands who were spectators of the terrific yet beautiful spectacle, who, if they did not applaud, were far from condemning the heinousness of the crime. Instead of regretting this'dreadful event as a national calamity, many appeared to consider it as a well-merited visitation,' and actually openly expressed their regret that the Lords' and Commons were not sitting at the time. We frequently heard such remarks as, “There’s a bonfire for the Poor Laws’ Bill,” and.many other similar expressions. A chimney-sweep who 'stood near to the Westminster Bridge appeared in high glee, and called out most lustily, ‘Ah, they’ll let us cry sweep again now, I’ll bet a guinea!’ This spirit, however, we regret t-o say, and we speak from personal knowledge, was not- confined to the lowest and most ignorant order. Many individuals, well dressed, and from whose appearance one would suppose they moved in at least a decent station in society, openly confessed to feel but little regret while witnessing the progress of the flames. They seemed to think that avisitation so awful would induce the Legislature to adopt some different measures to those that have occupied their almost exclusive attention; and any event that would produce that effect they were inclined to consider as a special and favorable interposition of Providence.” Newspapers did not always agree as to facts in those days. “The Times, as quoted by the “Chronicle,” found; that the demeanour of-the people, great, as well as small, was proper and peaceable. “They bet-raved nothing like a. feeling of exultation at the frightful havoc which was going on around! them—quite the reverse.” besides the Hon. Captain Baillie, one other member of the New Zealand Legislative Council —the Hon. H. Scotland —remembers the Parliamentary fire ot 1834. Mr. Scotland, then a boy in his teens, watched the fire from one of tho bridges over ther Thames,