The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 959, 23 July 1908, Page 20

The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette

WORRYING PROHIBITIONISTS.

News from Wellington informed us last week that the people behind the Bare Majority gun are sparing nothing, not even their friends, in their frantic efforts to have the Bare Majority principle foisted on to the people of the Dominion. It is said that members are being persistently worried '-y requests from constituents asking that they will support this bill of Mr. Laurenson’s. Numbers of the members are very much annoyed at the extreme pressure which is, being brought to bear on them. Several of our representatives complain that though they have entered the House pledged to the threefifths majority, the followers of bare majority have the audacity to ask that they go back on their pledges and vote for a principle which is not only against their pledges, but contrary , in toto to all sense of reason or fairplay. The saneness of the three-fifths-/majority can never be‘ ! questioned by any man or woman who has even the shadowiest sense of the rights of each man to his own property. Would the “ Bares ” have us believe that the people of the Dominion are so lost to all sense of justice that they will allow the enactment of a law which can only mean the playing of shuttlecock with tens of thousands of pounds of hotel property. That hotels may open or close every three years by the simple balance of a vote is ludicrous in its suggestion. The mere suggestion carries in itself the most abject confession of weakness. Does it not prove that the failure in most instances to poll the required threefifths majority proves to the nolicensers that their cause does not meet with the approval that it should do, if their arguments were sound. The evidence which daily appears from no-license districts is of such a convincing nature of the failure, utter failure, of no-license, that its advocates may well attempt to try other than legitimate means to attain their cherished, though fanatical, desires. Fanaticism in the extreme can only be responsible for the asking of a law which would permit hotels being closed at one poll and opened again at the next. The three-fifths majority, hard as it is on owners and licensees of valuable property, is a protection for the hotel closer as it is for the hotel opener. In any district where - the required majority have decided on closing the hotels it calls for the same majority to open the houses again. Whatever temporary success had been gained in some electorates by the no-license leagues in rounding up the required numbers is being speedily nullified by the resultant increase of police offences which follows closely on the heels of no-license. Coupled with this, and the fact that New Zealanders in sufficient numbers are not prepared to hand their right to drink or not drink liquor in an open and honourable manner over to a obliqued visioned portion of the community, comes the cry for the Bare Majority. At the local option poll the voters are the jury before which the question of license or no-license is tried, and it is essential that in a question which is so wide and far-reaching, and which affects the majority, that a substantial majority should decide. Signs are not wanting that the no-license leagues will shortly be only too glad that the bill which is introduced by Mr. Laurenson has not met with the cheerful reception that they would wish. If some of the existing nolicense centres do not revert to license at the next local option poll, and that by a three-fifths majority, then the lessons as taught by nolicense will have to be ignored. But we do not think so. The lessons and the conduct of the Prohibition party in trying to force their views on the people by the turn of a vote will not be lost on a people who lose nothing in comparison with other races in

business capacity, intelligence, athleticism, and, above all (apropos of the question now before us), in sobriety.

In Ashburton in 1902 the total charges laid in the police court numbered 309; last year they had increased to 316. In 1902, the offences relating to liquor were 93; in 190 7 they numbered 103.

In the local court last week a man named William Smith was remanded to appear at Te Kuiti on a charge of stealing six bottles of whisky.

Mr. Baume is asking for legislation providing that licensees of hotels shall be compelled to receive, at half ordinary rates, all children under seven years of age, provided they are under proper care.

At Christchurch last week, Charles William Heasky, proprietor of an

oyster saloon, was fined £2O and costs for selling beer with oysters without holding a. license.

A rumour has gained currency to the effect that hotel tariffs would be raised during Fleet Week, but we understand that there is no truth in the rumour. Possibly many visitors will have to put up with make-shift accommodation during the busy time, but no extra charges are contemplated.

Mrs. A. M. Coombe, relict of the late Simon Coombe, died at her residence at Devonport last week. Mrs. Coombe was well known in hotelkeeping circles, having for many years been in business in Auckland. After selling out at the United Service Hotel some few years back, the deceased lady retired from active business.

Mr. R. G. Knowles, who commenced a season at the London Palace on April 20, in a novel “ turn,” in which he details some of his experiences on his recently completed tour, is equipped with a whole budget of new stories. On the voyage to Cape Town he was struck by the mannerisms of a colonial bishop—a fellow-passenger—who, as he walked up and down the deck, used to give a little smile and then a little bow. Then he would shake his head and frown. Mr. Knowles says he believes that the bishop was always asking himself to take a little liquid refreshment, and always refusing the gentle suggestion!

The delays that have arisen in connection with the hearing of the charges against the licensee of the

Falls Hotel at Henderson, have been brought under the notice of the Government by Mr. John Bollard, M.P., who last week asked the Minister of Justice if he would cause inquiries to be made into the matter.

At Pukekohe last week a man was fined £5, with 21s. costs, for refusing to quit an hotel when requested to do so by the licensee.

The new hotel at Waiorongomai is just about completed, and should prove a decided acquisition to the district. The new site chosen makes the hotel more convenient to the travelling public.

At the meeting of the Christchurch Licensing Committee, which was held last week, an application for a wholesale license was refused, on the ground that there was no necessity for more than have been already issued.

Another sly grog case was reported from Invercargill last Thursday. John Anderson was before the Court, and pleaded guilty to the charge of sly grog selling, and was fined £4O. Anderson lived in a hut, where liquor was received and sold.

About three years ago a cheque for a considerable sum was lost in one of the public offices in Napier. As payment was stopped no loss resulted. A few days ago a drawer in the office jammed, and on examination it was found that the cause was the missing cheque. The incident recalls the discovery that was made during some alterations to an hotel in Dunedin, where a heap of bank notes were found, which had fallen out of a badly fitting till.

In the House of Commons, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Labour M.P. for the Barnard Castle Division of Durham, presented a Wesleyan petition, weighing 12 cwt., nine miles in length, and bearing 610,000 signatures, in favour of the Licensing Bill. The petition was wheeled into the House on a trolley.

It was reported from Wanganui last Thursday that at Ohakune, on the Main Trunk Railway, Mr. Stanford, S.M., fined Wm. Oliver £25 and costs for having cases of whisky in his possession in a prohibited area, in default three months’ imprisonment. A man named R. Malmaucke, who had carted the whisky for Oliver, was fined £5.

A case, said to be the first of its kind ever heard in the Dominion, was before the S.M. at the Raetihi Court last Thursday. A man named Brown, driver for a coaching firm, pleaded guilty to delivering liquor to persons whom he had reason to suspect of sly grog selling. He was fined £l5, and £8 costs.

Mr. Asquith has submitted a resolution to the House of Commons which proposes to allot two days to clause one of the Licensing Bill before the recess. The remainder of the Bill will be dealt with in the autumn session. Nineteen days will be devoted to the committee and five

to the report stage, and one day to the third reading. I * * * The interim report of the Royal Commission on whisky advises that no restrictions be placed on processes or apparatus used in the distillation of spirit manufactured from malt, malted or unmalted barley, or other cereal. ♦ * ♦ * Underneath the London wool warehouses in the vicinity of the Tower Bridge are huge vaults for the storage of wine, througn which run 28 miles of underground roads, lined on each sides with casks. This does not include the rum vaults at the West India Dock, where spirit is stored to the value of two and a-half millions sterling. In the London docks there are four acres of brandy cellars, but most of the space is occupied by port, sherry, and madeira. Visitors who explore these dark cellars light themselves along with a little lamp on the end of a stick, so as to see the extraordinary effects of the thick black and white fungus on the vaulted roof, caused by the vinous atmosphere. Convince a drunkard that his inside must be covered with this ghoulish flue, and he would take to ginger-beer (says an American writer), or else he would console himself with brandy, for spirit does not exhale the same mysterious breath. There is no fungus in the storehouses of strong waters.

In the local Court last Friday a Greek shopkeeper at Karangahaperoad was fined £1 and a guinea costs for selling a bottle of hop beer on the evening of Sunday, June 21.

A special meeting of creditors was held last Friday morning at the office of the official assignee, in connection with the administration of the estate of John Sainsbury (deceased), late of the Whangamata Hotel. The question to be discussed was that of voting a compassionate allowance to the widow, Mrs. Sainsbury. The only creditor represented was Messrs. L. D. Nathan, Ltd., who have a claim for about £7120 against the estate, which has only realised a few hundred pounds. It was agreed, on the proposal of Mr. Hudson, on behalf of Messrs. Nathan, “ That the executrix (Mrs. Sainsbury) be given a sum of £5O net, and that the assignee release the piano taken possession of and any other assets that he may lay claim to, and which have not been handed over to him by the executrix, on condition that the assignee be satisfied as to the safe holding of the licensed premises, now let to W. G. G. Watson.”

How Leonard Sutherland, of Winslow, took risks to procure a case of whisky was related in the Ashburton Court last Friday, when Leonard was charged with forging the name of Barney Kenney in a receipt in a railway delivery book for a case of whisky which he thereby received. Accused pleaded not guilty, and after evidence for the prosecution had been heard, decided to reserve his defence, and was committed for trial at the Supreme Court at Timaru on August 7. Bail was allowed.

The French vintage has again suffered a heavy loss, it being cabled last Friday that a storm destroyed 60b0 hectares (about 23 square miles) of the grape crop in the vicinity of Beziers in the South of • France. The resultant loss of vintage ■will imply a deficit of 600,000 hectolitres (13,200,000 gallons).

Many petitions are being presented to Parliament, asking that licensing polls should be decided by bare majority.

Mr. Asquith proposes to allot 25 days of the autumn session to the discussion on the Licensing Bill.

It may be that the sly grog seller is looking forward to the next local option poll with some apprehension, insomuch that some present dry districts may revert to licensed houses again. This may or may not be, but sly grog cases are becoming painfully frequent. Again last Friday at Ashburton, in the Magistrate’s Court, before Mr. V. G. 'Day, S.M., Thomas Crowe was charged with receiving orders for liquor in the no-license district of Ashburton from Thomas Holmes and from Harold Toomer, and with selling liquor in a no-license district to Thomas Holmes. On the first count he was convicted and discharged; on the second he was fined £2 and costs; and on the third, fined £2O and costs..

NO ACCOUNT.

At the Police Court last Friday, before Mr. R. W. Dyer, S.M., Wallace Scott, a labourer, was charged with obtaining £1 13s. and £2 from Andrew Morris, licensee of the Aurora Hotel, Auckland, by means of valueless cheques. Chief-Detective Marsack stated that on July 8, Scott, who was residing at the Aurora Hotel, in Victoria street, asked for a blank cheque, which was handed to him at the hotel. Scott then filled in the cheque for £1 125., and asked the licensee to cash it, which was done. On the following day he obtained another blank cheque and filled it in for £2. This cheque was also cashed, and on presentation at the bank both were returned marked “ No account.”

Scott pleaded guilty, and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.

NO CHANCE.

In the Parliamentary news telegraphed to the New Zealand Herald” last Friday, comes the statement from Wellington that during the past few days members of Parliament have been deluged with letters and telegrams from constituents, asking them to support the bare majority principle in regard to prohibiting the sale of liquor. Mr. Laurenson has a bill on the order paper dealing with the question, and this is the measure members are being asked to support. A great many members are considerably annoyed that such extreme pressure should be brought to bear on them, under all the circumstances. Several point out that they have supported the prohibition movement, and have pledged themselves to the three-fifths majority principle at the request of the party which is now asking them to go back on these pledges. A well-known member stated that . there is great indignation amongst members in consequence, and the present move will undoubtedly do harm to the prohibition movement. He says the Bare Majority Bill has not a 100 to 1 chance of becoming law, but even if the Lower House were to pass it unanimously it would certainly bo thrown out in the Upper Chamber.

THE “ SUCCESS ” OF NO-LICENSE.

JUDGED BY ACTUAL RESULTS

The No-license Handbook is responsible for the statement that the returns of the Ashburton Police Court furnish an unanswerable argument in favour of no-license. In the same work it is further stated that the growth of the town since 190 2 has been steady and uninterrupted, and that Ashburton is in as sound a position commercially to-day as at any period in its history. How far from the real truth these statements are will be apparent from a comparison of 1902—the last complete year of license—with last year. CRIME IN ASHBURTON.

In 1902 the total charges laid in the Police Court numbered 309; last year they had increased to 316. In

1902 the offences relating to liquor were 93; in 1907 they numbered 103. made up as follows: —Drunkenness, 44; selling liquor without a license, 22; prohibited persons procuring liquor, 5; disorderly conduct whilst drunk, 1; keeping liquor for sale, 4; failing to notify vendor under Licensing Act, 2; failing to notify Clerk of Court, 6; failure to label package of liquor, 4; failing to give name and address when ordering liquor, 3; procuring liquor for prohibited person, 3; found in premiess when sly grog search warrant executed, 9; total, 103. Thus the only unanswerable argument +hat Ashburton can furnish in favour of no-license is an increase in crime and in offences relating to drink.

THE PROSPERITY OF THE TOWN. In. the live years since no-license the population of Ashburton has increased from 2 500 to 25 63, which of itself is -fioc.uent testimony to the utter stagnation of the town. Business is very bac. over’ forty establishments harm ?; changed hands since 1903, and fu-ly a dozen businesses are now in the market. At least Six prominent Prohibitionist tradesmen have shown themselves so satisfied, with business under the regime they advocated that they have removed themselves and tl.eir businesses to places where licenses exist. No less than eleven shops have been burnt out in the last 18 months, and the town is so prosperous that in many cases no effort has been made to rebuild. The debts sued for in the Magistrate’s Court have increased in amount from £3115 in 19 02 to £4 633 in 190 7, an increase of 4 9 per cent., which disposes of the frequently expressed opinion that people pay their debts better under no-license. It is said that a large proportion of business people are satisfied, but actions speak louder than words, and at the Court-house polling booth, in the centre of the business population, the votes cast in 1905 were: — For restoration 618 Against restoration .... 335 Majority for restoration. . 283 A QUESTION FOR TEMPERANCE REFORMERS. It is evident that, judged by the very test proposed by the Prohibitionists themselves, no-license is a failure in Ashburton. There is no decrease in crime, as shown by the police-court records; on the contrary, there is a slight increase. Instead of increased prosperity, so lavishly promised, we find complete stagnation. Instead of business people enlarging their premises, we find them falling ovei’ each other in their hurry to escape from the town. Instead of the workers having a plentiful supply of cash, we find small debts harder than ever to collect. On the top of all these failures, we have the horrors of sly grog, with its train of ruined homes.

In the face of all these facts, is it not time for those temperance reformers who believe in coercion as a remedy to ask themselves whether these results are in spite of, or because of, the law they defend?

ALLEGED TOBACCO FRAUDS.

LARGE SUMS INVOLVED. Two commercial travellers, Arthur Tillinghest and William Robertson, were before the Central Police Court, Sydney, last week, Tillinghest being charged with having stolen 582,000 cigarettes, valued at £5OO, and Robertson, tobacco, cigarettes, and money to the value of £lOOO, the property of Peter Mathieson. It was stated that a charge of conspiracy would be laid against accused, the amount involved being £6OOO to £7OOO. They were remanded. Tillinghest was then called upon to answer several charges of forgery of receipts. Peter Mathieson said that the accused had been in his employ for five years, the last three as outdoor salesman, on a salary of £2 and commission, which brought the salary up to between £2 10s. and £3 weekly. None of the amounts represented in the receipts had been paid in. Robertson was charged on three counts of embezzlement. Both were remanded on heavy bail.

MORE SLY GROG.

Last week at Balclutha, George Fisher, keeper of the Farmers’ Arms boardinghouse, was charged with unlawfully keeping whisky for sale, and pleaded guilty. The police raided the place on June 26, and found one bottle of whisky underneath a table

in the sitting-room, and several glasses, which had evidently contained whisky, in a cupboard in a chaff house. They found 57 full bottles of whisky in a hole underneath the

chaff bin. It was the defendant’s first offence, and the magistrate (Mr. Kenrick, S. M.) said that he would take this into consideration, and also the further fact that defendant had pleaded guilty. He would be fined £25, with

costs (£3 10s), and the liquor would be confiscated.

LICENSES AND DRUNKENNESS.

In the “Socialistis Review” Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., although professing that the licensing Bill is, on the whole, one that socialists may welcome, quotes the following striking statistics to disprove the argument of the Government that fewer

public-houses .imply less drunkenness.

Mr. Snowden says:—“The towns of Accrington and Nelson, in Lancashire, are in all respects fairly comparable. The towns are but twelve miles apart, the populations are fairly equal, both are cotton weaving centres, both strongly Nonconformist, their housing conditions are very similar.

The figures as to the number of licenses, convictions for drunkenness, etc., are shown in the licensing statistics for 1906 to be as follows: — Accrington—Population, 43,122; onlicense, 15; off-licenses, 17; clubs, 16. Nelson —Population, 32816, onlicense 15; off-license 17; club 10. Convictions for drunkenness —Accrington, 144; Nelson, 202. Accrington—One license to 1025 of the population. Accrington—One conviction per 300 of population. Nelson —One conviction per 162 of population.

A MODEL PUBLIC HOUSE.

The latest pronouncement of Mr. W. T. Stead on the licensing question is characterised by that broadmindedness which I have always admired in the man (says a writer in the “Caterer”). Convinced that the automatic closing of public-houses is the poorest possible resource to mitigate the drink evil, but that reformers must be content to take one step at a time, he pins his faith on a reformed public-house. This is exactly what I have myself advocated in these notes from time to time. It will be recollected also that similar views have been aired on the subject by the Rev. Stewart Headlam, the Rev. J. G. Simpson, and Mr. Cecil Chesterton, the Secretary of the Anti-Puritan League. The spirit of the times is decidedly towards the improvement of our existing institutions, despite the cry of the faddists and fanatics who would like to see them swept away altogether, And, since the publicans are only too willing to improve their premises in response to the popular demand, a better state of things must follow if sweet reasonableness can be brought to bear upon the arguments which make for abolition and confiscation. As a climax to his outspoken opinions at a Nonconformist meeting recently, Mr. Stead has now a welldefined plan to . put forward. “I would call my public-house the Public Home,” he says, “and I would alter it so that it became more of a restaurant and less of a bar. The old customers, who were used to the place as a drinking shop, could have anything they asked; but those who took non-intoxicants would have most favor, most attention, and the most comfortable room. In fact, the entire idea would be to make things very attractive for those who took non-alcoholic refreshment, while those who wanted strong drink would be able to get it easily, without restraint or a sermon. I would have my tea-room served by very pretty girls, who would be more like hostesses than waitresses. Strong drink would only be served by men. There would be music in my public-house, ft ;I were allowed to have it, and there would also be perfect ventila- ■' tion. “When my public-house was complete,” he continues, “I would issue invitations for the house-warming. I would invite ministers, police, publicans, pawnbrokers, school-teachers, employers of labor, trade union officials, doctors, dustmen, guardian of the poor, and footballers. Those who were married should bring their wives. .1 would take the opportunity of explaining to those who came my object and my method of obtaining it. I would give my guests a good programme of music, vocal and instrumental. There would also be a lavish display of tea, coffee, cocoa, lemonade, sandwiches;, cakes, pastry, and fruit. Those who wanted drink could go to, the bar. I think that running a public-house on those lines,” he says, in conclusion, “would soon make extensions necessary, and I think that some of the other beerhouses, and public-houses in the neighbourhood would not be long in closing their doors.”

THE FAILURE OF PROHIBITION.

In “Life,” the well-known magazine edited by Rev. Fitchett, the following summing-up of the American liquor question is printed. It may be remembered that the experiment of prohibitory laws has been tried in the United States for many years, and the history of the experiment is one of many failures. Fourteen States adopted prohibition

in the ten years betwixt 184 6-1856, and of this group Maine is the only survivor. The remaining six have, have with only one exception, “gone dry”—to use the American phrase—since 1880. The list, with dates, is worth putting on record: — Maine. —Adopted prohibition in 1846; repealed in 1856; re-

enacted prohibition in 1858. New Hampshire.—Adopted in 1855;

repealed in 1903. Vermontt. —Adopted in 18 50; repealed in 1903. Massachusetts. —Adopted in 18 52; repealed in 1858; re-adopted in 18 69; repealed in 1875. Rhode Island. —Adopted in 1852; repealed in 1863; re-adopted in 1886; repealed in 1889. Connecticut. —Adopted in 1854; repealed in 1872. New York. Adopted in 185 5; de-, dared unconstitutional. Ohio. —Adopted in 1851; annulled by

a license-tax law. Indiana. —Adopted in 1855; declared

unconsttittutional. Michigan.—Adopted in 1855; repealed in 18 75. Illinois. —Adopted in 1851; repealed

in 1853. Wisconsin.—Adopted in 1855; vetoed by Governor. lowa. —Adopted partial prohibition in 1855; full prohibition in 1884;

mulct law in 1893. Nebraska. —Adopted in 1855; repeal-

ed in 1858. Kansas.—Adopted Constitutional am-

endment in 1880. North Dakota.—Constitutional provision in 1890; repealed in 1896. South Dakota. —Constitutional pro-

vision in 1890. Georgia.—Adopted prohibition in

1907. Oklahoma.—Adopted prohibition in

1907. Alabama.—Adopted prohibition in 1908.

This table certainly seems to show that a curious strain of levity runs through American politics. There is great courage in making experiments, and an equal courage in abandoning them. It is clear, too, since only six States out of twenty who adopted prohibition have kept the pledge, that policy was in advance of public sentiments.

THE PROHIBITION PARTY

“Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern,” exclaimed Edmund Burke, in his immortal speech on “The French Revolution,” “make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle repose beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud, and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the majority of the inhabitants of the field. But the fact is that after all they are only the little, shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour.” This very truism is not realised by the little and insignificant politicians who, of recent years, have been chinked by the prohibition insects into making ridiculous and reactionary, oppressive laws against the peace and natural instincts of the people’s masses, who, sad but true, have indeed behaved like the cud-chewing cattle, in that they have tolerated the tools of the insects .to impose upon them. But matters are now about to be changed, as there is a great civilising and enlightening force at work against us-—publicity, and this force is being employed to shed its glaring light upon the insignificant number of the crazily-chinking insects. —“Licensing World.”

BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTUNITY.

“Beg pardon, sir,” said the man in the suit of faded black, “but are you carrying all the life insurances you want?”

“Yes, sir,” answered the man at the desk, “I am.” “Can I interest you in a moroccobound edition of the vzorks of William Makepeace Thackeray?”

“You could not.” “Don’t you want a germ-proof filter at your house?” “I do not.”

Would you be inclined to consider a good secondhand typewriter if you could get it cheap?” “I have no use for a typewriter.” Just so. Would an offer to supply you with first class Havana cigars at £2 a hundred appeal to you” “Not a pennyworth.” “How would a proposition to sell you a Century Dictionary, slightly shelf worn, for only £7 10s suit you?”

“It would not come within forty miles of hitting me.” . “That being the case,” said the caller, “would you be willing to buy a two-penny box of boot polish just to get rid of me?” “Great Scott, Yes.” “Thanks. Good day.”

Doctor: “Did your husband follow my directions? Did he take the medicine I left for him religiously?” Patient’s Wife: “I’m afraid not, doctor; he swore every time I gave him a dose.”

THE IRISHMAN’S CHOICE.

An Irishman had trouble with his eyes, and consulted a doctor. The doctor told him to take his choice — he must stop drinking or go blind. The Irishman turned the proposition over in his mind a while. “ Well, I’m sivinty-two years old now,” he said, “ I belaive I’ve seen iverything worth seein’.”

HIS EDUCATION WAS COMPLETE.

Professor: “ If a person who is in good health, but who imagined himself sick, should send for you, what would you do? ” Medical Student: “ Give him something to make him ill, and then administer an antidote.” Professor: “ Don’t waste any more time here; put up your brass plate.”

NOT WHISKY, BUT PORTER.

An old labourer was hurrying along a railway platform to catch a train, when a porter suddenly collided with him, knocking him down. The local Nonconformist minister happened to come along as he was slowly rising to his feet, and said, reproachfully, to him: “ Ah, my good man, you’ve been at the whisky again.” “ No, yer honour,” replied the old labourer promptly; “it wasn’t the whisky this time —it was the porter.”

MAKING SURE OF THE DAMAGES.

“ Hullo! ” exclaimed a costermonger on meeting an acquaintance. “ Wot damages did you get for being in that motor ’bus accident? ” “ Eavy ones, my boy! ” was the reply, accompanied by a grin. “ I got twenty pounds for myself and twenty pounds for the missus.” “ The missus! Was she hurt, too? ” “ Yes, in course! I ’ad the presence of mind to fetch her one over the ’ead ’fore we was rescued! ”

A good story told of Harry Thaw in Paris is as follows:—Asking a waiter what was the biggest tip that he ever received, the man answered, “A thousand francs, Monsieur.” “Hae bien!” Thaw exclaimed: ‘‘l will give you two thousand; here they are. And now tell me who it was gave you a thousand francs?” “Yourself, Monsieur!” was the reply.

At a Scottish dinner gathering, this interesting colloquy between the minister and one of his flock took place:—“Why waren’t you at the Kirk on Sunday?” ‘‘l was at Mr. McClelsan’s kirk.” “But I don’t like you running about to strange kirks like that. Not that I object to your hearing Mr. McClellan preach, but I’m sure you widna like your sheep straying into strange pastures.” “I widna care a grain, sir, if it was better grass.”

Bishop Thornton, many years ago, was in possession of the episcopal see of Ballarat, Australia. At a dinner function this season he related a story rather against himself. Once when he benighted on the outskirts of a small township, he espied lights in the window of a solitary habitation. Approaching joyfully, he knocked. “Who goes there?” a voice demanded. “I am the Bishop of Ballarat,” he replied. “Would you be good enough to tell me where I can find my way to the nearest hotel?” Course laughter greeted this request. Then one of the compositors working there (for the place was a newspaper office) put his head out of the window, and shouted, “Look here, old man, you’ve had quite enough hotel for one night. Go home and get to bed, or you”ll be run in as sure as eggs!”