The Hon. GEORGE CURZON and Miss LEITER (U.S.A.) have been married.
The State of Illinois is indignant. The two facts are more intimately
connected than might be supposed. Four days after the wedding a
resolution was introduced into the State Legislature of Illinois by a
Mr. MCCARTHY, requesting the daughters of Illinois "not to accept
the hand in marriage of any person who is not a citizen of the United
States, as we are of opinion that the daughters of Illinois should
be patriotic in their views, and should disregard the title of any
foreigner, and marry none but a citizen of the United States." It is
stated that the resolution "was referred to the Committee on Federal
Relations." Surely a Committee on domestic relations or on titled
relations would have been more appropriate.
* * * * *
The Illinois State Legislature obviously has novel ideas of its
legislative duties. Imagine an English County Council treating
seriously such fantastic rubbish as Mr. MCCARTHY brought before the
law-makers of his State. Would it not be more to the point to look
after the sons of Illinois, and to keep the hue of their resolution up
to the mark? If they are laggards in love, who shall blame the British
aristocrat for wooing with success the daughters of Illinois,
whom their compatriot suitors abandon? Or again, if titles are so
irresistible an attraction to the fair, why not establish titles in
Illinois, and thus give the Earl of BANGS or the Marquis SALTONTALE
that seductive influence which is apparently lacking to plain ZEDEKIAH
B. BANGS, and to the unadorned JONATHAN K. SALTONTALE. For it is
obviously better that the daughters of Illinois should marry than
that they should waste away with an unbridaled (let the spelling pass)
desire for a title.
* * * * *
At Oxford on Wednesday last the University beat Somerset by one
wicket, mainly owing to the admirable batting of Mr. H. D. G. LEVESON
GOWER, popularly known as "The Shrimp."
To the batsmen of Oxford, who looked very limp,
Father Neptune was kind when he gave them a Shrimp:
For a Shrimp on the grass is most worthy of rhyme,
When he makes a firm stand, but gets runs all the time.
* * * * *
The inhabitants of Christmas Street in Bristol want to have their
thoroughfare laid with wood paving. At present, according to an
indignant correspondent, "the pitching in the street is so bad that it
is positively dangerous for vehicular traffic ... but the risk to life
and limb are entirely subservient to the parsimonious policy of
our Bristol Sanitary Authority." Might I suggest Yule logs as an
appropriate pavement for Christmas Street? Certainly this accident
policy of the Bristol Sanitary Authority ought to be allowed to lapse.
* * * * *
I gather from a letter in the _Freeman's Journal_ that Bray is not
being well treated by the Bray Township Commissioners. "If Bray is
to march with the times," says the writer, "and keep pace with the
laudable efforts of our Tourist Development Association," something
must be done to improve the walk round Bray Head. The picture of Bray
keeping pace and marching with the times by walking round its own head
is too confusing for the intelligence of the dense Saxon.
* * * * *
An article in the _Scotsman_ declares that "a great laxity of costume
is characteristic of modern Oxford." Straw hats and brown boots appear
to abound everywhere. It is added that "Bowlers are already beginning
to be preserved as relics of a bygone race." This will be glorious
news for the Cambridge Eleven, for a merely preserved bowler cannot be
very dangerous.
* * * * *
From a recent issue of the _Freeman's Journal_ I extract the following
letter, which, it must be admitted, "makes both sides right" with a
clearness that leaves nothing to be desired. Note, too, the writer's
natural vexation at the idea that he "assisted the constable":--
TO THE EDITOR Of THE FREEMAN.
_114, Lower Clanbrassil Street, Dublin, May 14, 1895._
SIR,--With reference to your issue of the 13th inst., and the
stolen tea from one of the London and Northern-Western vans, I
beg leave to state that I in no way assisted the constable in
the arrest of the prisoner, as you state; neither was there
any necessity for me doing so, as he had sufficient help along
with him at the time. But I did help the driver of the waggon
when on the ground to recover his feet and get back to his
waggon with the tea in question. My reasons for doing so were
as follows--first, being a van driver myself, and I might say
has been such all my lifetime, and knowing that when goods are
stolen from any van in nine cases out of every ten the driver
of such a van has to make good the same and be put under
stoppages although no fault of his. Secondly, when I came on
the scene the driver of the waggon seemed to be getting the
worst of it, as the offender had two others helping him.
If someone did not interfere, therefore, under those
circumstances and to protect the interest of my
fellow-workers, as I am always ready to do, I interfered, and
under no other.--Hoping you will kindly insert this in your
next issue and make both sides right, and thanking you for the
same, I remain your humble servant,