Alderman Sir RENERY KNIGHT, late Lord Mare, and one of the werry best
as we ever had, and so was his good wife, the Lady Maress, hapening
for to be a setting at the Manshun House when the LORD MARE was gorn
out for a ride somewheres, had to receive what I thinks is called a
Deputytashun--though not a bit like reel Deputys, who is all werry
rich--of poor working-men as ain't got not no work to do, and, like
the kind gennelman as he is, he gave 'em sum such capital adwice as to
the utter stoopidity of making theirselves noisy and disagreeable when
they wants to make people kindly dispoged towards 'em, and as to the
well-known fackt, that the best friends of the working-classes is them
as spends their money the most freest and the most liberalist, that
he set the hole City a ringing with it, and as always happens alike
in exacly similar cases, up starts a mere upstart of a Pollytickle
Economist--how I hates the werry sound of that larst word, which is
ony another name for stingyness and meanness and sham forgitfulness
of the pore Waiter--and says as it ain't true! Like his imperance
I think, but of coarse ewery body has a right to his own opinion,
however ridicklus it may be. But being a Lecturer, and therefore
I spose acustomed to use his tung pretty freely, he mite have been
xpected to have kept a civil one in his head when he rote his reply to
Sir RENERY. Instead of which he fust calls him incorrygible, which
I beleeve means that he carnt be conwicted, as if a Alderman and
Magistrate could be! He then writes of his "Colossal ignorance!" I
don't quite know what it means but I'm quite sure that however small
the Alderman's may be, the Lecturer's is ever so much bigger, as I'll
prove from my own pussonal knowledge.
He acshally has the ordassity to adwise the Rite Honerable the LORD
MARE not to employ so many cooks! Poor hignoramus! has he ever dined
at the Manshun House on a trewly grate ocashun? Most suttenly not, or
he never would have written such a silly, not to say cruel sentence.
Not so many cooks indeed! Does he think that the Chef who has given
his whole mind to the preparing of the Thick and Clear Turtle, is not
so utterly xhausted that he has to drink two or three glasses of werry
old Madeary, and then lay down on his sophy and recover hisself
by slow degrees. Does he think that the Fish Cooks, with praps six
differing kinds of Fish to prepare, is fit for anything else? and how
about the Sauce Artists, let him try to emagine, tho' he'll try in
wain, what they has to go through in the tasting line. Then there are
the French gentlemen who superintend the production of those wunders
in what they calls the guestronommick line, wiz.: the _Ontrays!_ Is
it supposed by this "curlossal" hignoramus, that they can, after
achieving brilliant success in these wunders of hart, condescend to
turn their attention to such werry small deer as poultry and jints?
Suttenly not, the thing's absurd. But they requires cooks, tho' of
coarse, not of the same hi horder as the Hartists.
But, strange to tell, ewen this is not the wust. Not only is the LORD
MARE adwised not to employ so many Cooks, but the trewly wunderful
reason is given, becoz he can then employ more railway navvies! Shades
of FRANK HURTELLY and SWOYHAY, rest tranquil in your long graves!
But what a dedly hinsult to one of the werry noblest of all noble
perfessions, to compare for usefulness a mere railway navvy to a great
Chef. Is this strange economist aware that the great Earl of SEFTON,
prais to his memory! used to allow his Chef L300 a year and a Horse
and Broom for the Park! But all sitch conclusive arguments is I fear
utterly lost upon him.
However, there is just one matter for which I have to thank him. I
confess that my face werry possibly turned gashly pale as I read his
orful letter, I fornatrally thort if he is going to recommend less
Cooks he may werry posserbly be a going for to recommend less Waiters!
But no, he had the good taste to draw his line there, and for that I
thanks him. What a treat it is to turn from the wild projecks of the
Lecterer to the wise counsels of the Alderman. No doubt, he says, we
could all do without luxuries, but what would become of the millions
who produces them? No doubt, he says, we could all live on plain food
and drink water--what orful words for a Alderman to write down!--but
then what would become of the millions who earns their living
in preparing them, and he might have added, as a clencher to his
staggering argument, and what would become of Hus? If there is one
picter that presents itself to my orrified imagination, that more than
any other staggers it, it is that of the hole splendid Army of London
Waiters, with their full dress black coats a gitting jist a leetle
shabby, and their lovely white chokers jest a leetle shady, a parading
the London Streets, and a singing in Chorus, "We've got no work
to do!" But no, I feels as that orful dream will never live to be
realised, but, to use the classic langwidge as the Lecturer quotes
from some frend of his, and which I supposes as he intends as a
complement, "let the idol rich still take their proper place as
drones in the hive, gorging at a feast to which they have contributed
nothing," and he might have added, and never never forgetting the
Waiter.