THE JEWELLERS WINDOW Links With London

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30176, 6 July 1963, Page 8

THE JEWELLERS WINDOW Links With London

[Specially Written for th* 'The Press" by ARNOLD WALL]

TbECAUSE the societies or -*-* organisations that promoted the colonisation of New Zealand were located in London the links between that city and this country have always been strong. It interested me, and may interest others, to discover by chance one link of this kind between Old London and early Canterbury. Thomas Henry Potts (18241886> came to New Zealand in 1853, lived at first at the corner of Tuam and Antigua streets. Christchurch, and in 1856 built a fine stone house (still a show-place) at Ohinetahi, Governors Bay. He was a keen gardener and naturalist, brought to this country azaleas, rhododendrons. many kinds of ferns, supplied seedlings for the new public gardens, travelled much about the Canterbury Province and published a charming little book, “Out in the Open.” in 1882, now a rarity. He pioneered the policy of national parka and reserves and took a prominent part in the public life of the Canterbury Province; altogether the best possible type of settler for a new country. Potts, like his father before him, was a gunsmith and is said to have come to New Zealand from Birmingham; but his father carried on his business in London as may be seen in the story alluded to in the opening of this article. In December, 1816. there were serious riots in Spa Fields, London, after a meeting called “to take into consideration the propriety of petitioning the Prince Regent upon the present distressed state of the country.” The rioters raided the gunsmiths’ shops to provide themselves with arms. The contemporary account says. “The shop of Mr Ray. in the Minories. was attacked in the same way as that of Mr Beckwith. They then attacked the shops of Brandon and of Potts and took all the arms that could be found there.”

This Potts. I suppose, would have been the father of the New Zealand settler, our Potts, who was born eight years after the Spa Fields riots. There is a certain affinity between the gunsmith and the naturalist. I well remember that during •the 90'a of last century the window of Gland’s, in the Strand, was adorned with the skull of a crocodile which had been brought from Malaya by one of my brothers. The capture of the crocodile and the preparation of the trophy made quite a story. Prophecies In or about 1800 some artist provided a sort of prophetic picture of the man of the future; it was printed in postcard size and widely sold in England. The bicycle had become popular; the motor had not yet appeared. The man and woman of the future were represented as a pair of low-browed ape-like creatures with very thin arms and terrible bulging legs like those of grand pianos. The implication was that the undue reliance on wheels would develop the legs, reduce the arms, and finally cause the brain to dimmish or disappear. What, I wonder, would that artist have to say now. The motor has become the tyrant and it is not the bicycle which threatens to •reduce us to the status of the apes. No, thinking along the new line would seem to threaten both arm and leg, for neither is essential for the driver; he needs only hand and, in the car of the future, probably not the foot. What, then will he be like? The answer is the penguin. According to one school at modern thought, man is on the way towards a state of permanent childhood. Just as the kiwi lost his wings through disuse, they say, so will man scrap his intellect and spend an effortless life in happy play. But it must be play that needs no arms or legs and the Welfare State will also be the “drive-in” state. I should like to see a picture of this penguinoid

man driving from his diningroom to his bedroom in the distant future. Rise And Rice When « word ending in -se is used as both a noun and a verb we generally pronounce the S in the noun as S but in the verb as Z. Thus we have “uae” as a noun pronounced “uce" but as a verb "use”; so also "abuse.” "refuse,” “advise” and “advice.” where we chanxe the spelling as well as the pronunciation, and others. So why do we not pronounce the noun “rise” as “rice"? In order to be ' consistent surely we should do so; a man should get a “rice” in salary, and there should be a “rice” in the price of eggs. Well, our ancestors did say “rice" for the noun, but not consistently; some speakers said it, some did not. and in the long run the "rize” won the battle. “Rice" held on longer in the United States than in Britain. Many authorities, from Sheridan. 1780, to as late as 1859, Worcester, United States prescribed “rice.”

The poets, however, from Shakespeare onwards rhymed the noun with “eyes” and "skies;" the only recorded rhyme for “rice" is in Wesley’s Easter Hymn, 1738, where it rhymes with “paradise” and that was probably only a “printer's rhyme” like "love" and "move." etc. Walker, 1791. while prescribing “rice” observes that the noun “very properly takes the fine sound pf S to distinguish the noun from the verb, but does not adhere to the distinction so inviolably as the noun's use, excuse etc." And again, "the pure S however, is more agreeable to analogy and ought to be scrupulously preserved by all correct speakers."

Alas for this champion of the orthodox, all correct speakers turned a deaf ear ■to his plea. Is there any discernible reason for the dismissal of the noun “rice" and the preference for “rize”? It does not seem likely that "rize" was preferred because “rice" might conflict with the other “rice" the edible grain, but I suggest no other reason.