JOHN PAYNE.

Observer, Volume XXVII, Issue 36, 25 May 1907, Page 3

JOHN PAYNE.

He Despises Tradesmen and Aspires to be a Gentleman.

JOHN PAYNJE, the extraordinary individual that has been making himself offensive to members of the technical staff who declined to subscribe to the testimonial and supper to Mr George George, has gent us what he evidently regards as a very severe letter. Mr Payne esteems himself a master of satire. The satire in this letter is of a ponderous and elephantine character. Probably, it is of the brand taught in the literature department of the Technical School under the masterly supervision of Mr George George. Also, the letter carries upon its face the impress of humour, but it is unconscious humour, and closely akin to that particular kind that is suggested by the appearance of the clown in the circus ring.

Mr Payne commences his letter with this cutting remark : — "When next you put anything in your er about me and my typewriter, will you be good enough to add that said typewriter is a ' Monarch ' ?" "Well, if it should be necessary to put anything farther concerning Mr Payne in our columns, we shall have no objection whatever to addin"" all about his typewriter. We are Quite prepared also to give our readers information concerning the kind of soap John Payne washes with, if that is of any interest to them, and the particular size of reach-me-downs that he wears, and the amount of porridge that he consumes at his breakfast. That is, of course, if the information is of any interest to our readers. We are afraid, however, that they are not concerned about Mr Payne, or what he does, or even whether he' exists. Mr George George is apparently the only person who is wrapped up in Mr John Payne and his personal concerns.

Mr John Payne facetiously proceeds to observe : — " By the wa" I shall not expect to see you at the opening of the GENTLEMEN'S CLUB at CAMBRIDGE next Wednesday, as although you are not a TRADESMAN and would not be debarred on that account, STILL YOU WOULD BE DEBARRED BECAUSE ' YOU HAVE NOT THE NECESSARY QUALIFICATION and again the capitals are mine.' This is very severe. However, Mr John Payne will not see us at the opening of the Gentlemen's Club at Cambridge. This will be a relief to his genteel feelings. Moreover, if Mr John Payne is a gentleman, we would very much prefer to be refarded as anything else. Possibly, owever, Mr John Payne may be making too sure of his welcome at the Cambridge Gentlemen's Club. The Gentlemen's Club might draw the line very severely at Mr John Payne, self-styled Gentleman.

Mr John Payne's tone of lofty superiority to "tradesmen" ill becomes an individual who pretends to be a gentleman. In this democratic country, we are all tradesmen, or mechanics, or labourers, or something else that mey be ungentlemanly but is nevertheless honest. Those of us who "are tradesmen are not ashamed of the fact and have nothing to be ashamed of. Even Mr John Payne was probably not ashamed to be classed as a tradesman when, for four years, he drew a weekly wage in consideration of his services at Hellaby's butchering establishment. Since he has breathed the aristocratic atmosDhere of the Technical School, however, and has been privileged to rub shoulders with the genteel Mr George George, the fragrance of beef sausages and ox kidneys has died

out of his nostrils, and he essays not only to be a gentleman but to derpise tradesmen. John Payne is not a bit snobbish.

We take it that this John Payne is the same John Payne that wrotd to the " Star " last Wedneßda' " 1 am personally only too happy to do anything that Mr George George may at any time demand." Well, perhaps, the sycophantic John is haDpy at the feet of Mr George George. The average gentleman mi^ht, however, choose to draw the line, at some of the things that Mr George George might demand. But then these are gentlemen of another type. In the conclusion to our letter, Mr John Pavne signs himself "yours fraternally." Now, this is a trifle too familiar. If we allow it to pass without remonstrance, we shall have every ass who brays in the community claiming relationship with us.

Of course,, everyone knows that the prosecution was so much policy fireworks, designed to please the labour agitators and to illustrate the determination of the Government €o enforce the law, and was not to be taken too seriously. But if it had been entered upon as an impartial prosecution, intended to show employers and employed alike that the law could not be broken with impunity, it is difficult to conceive how the Government could dodge the re-

sponsibility of also prosecuting Mr Arthur Rosser, J.P. and member of the Conciliation Board; He was secretary of the union, he took an active part in the.ineetings, and 1» telegraphed to Sir Joseph Ward that it was the intention of the men to strike in the afternoon. Can it be argued that he was not an aider Or abettor or participant ? The fact that no proceedings were taken against Mr Rosser shows that the Government was neither impartial nor sincere in the matter.