Did the good neighbour go by the cheap excursion? Yes, the good neighbour did go by the cheap excursion, and so did his wife, his wife's mother, and his six children. Did he catch the cab of the early driver? No, he did not catch the cab of the early driver, but he used the omnibus of the sleeping coachman, who took him as far as half-way (half-way as far as). Had the good neighbour to finish the journey to the railway station on foot? Yes, he had, and so had his wife, his wife's mother, and his six children. Are they in a good temper, or a bad temper? They are in a bad temper, because it is raining, and because the mother of the wife of the good neighbour had not wished to go. Have they found the right train? No, they have not found the right train, but are entering carriages bound for another destination. Has the guard of the wrong train disturbed the good neighbour, his wife, his wife's mother, and his six children? The guard of the wrong train has disturbed them, and has thrust them into the bad carriages of the right train. Were not the bad carriages of the right train already crowded? They were already crowded with the hairdresser, the artist's model, the plasterers, the builders, the sweeps, the fruiterers, and the quiet young man who contributes poetry to the columns of a local paper. Did not the entrance of the good neighbour, his wife, his wife's mother, and his six children, inconvenience the hairdresser, the artist's model, the plasterers, the builders, the sweeps, the fruiterers, and the quiet young man who contributes poetry to the columns of the local paper? It did, and caused most of them to use bad language (i.e., oaths). Did the quiet young man who contributes poetry to the columns of a local paper use bad language? No, the quiet young man who contributes poetry to the columns of a local paper did not use bad language, because he was in a fit. How did the good neighbour enjoy his journey? The good neighbour did not enjoy his journey, because he had to submit to the smoke of the hairdresser, the lavender water of the artist's model, the snuff of the plasterers, the smoke of the builders, the concertinas of the sweeps, the comic songs of the fruiterers, and the gasps of the quiet young man who contributes poetry to the columns of a local paper. Did the good neighbour have to submit to any further inconvenience? Yes, he was abused by his wife, bullied by his wife's mother, and plagued by his six children. Was the weather at the destination of the good neighbour favourable? No, it was not favourable, as it rained heavily all day. Did the good neighbour find time hang heavily on his hands? Yes, he did find time hang heavily on his hands; but not so heavily as his wife, his wife's mother, and six children. Did the good neighbour, his wife, his wife's mother, and his six children get sufficient to eat? No, they did not get sufficient to eat; but they discussed the broken scraps left at a shilling ordinary (i.e., ordinary price one shilling). Were they happy to get home? Yes, they were happy to get home; but had to return with the hairdresser, the artist's model, the plasterers, the builders, the sweeps, the fruiterers, but not the quiet young man who contributes poetry to the columns of a local paper. Were the hairdresser, the artist's model, the plasterers, the sweeps, and the fruiterers more noisy at night than they had been in the morning? Yes, they were more noisy, because they had all been drinking the much-adulterated beer of the prosperous but dishonest publican. Did the good neighbour arrive at home at last? Yes, the good neighbour did arrive at home at last, but more dead than alive (i.e., aliver than more dead). Will the wife of the good neighbour, her mother, and her six children go on a similar trip on the next suitable occasion? They will go, but they will not be accompanied, if he can help it, by the good neighbour. Will the good neighbour be able to help it? No, the good neighbour will not be able to help it; so he will accompany his wife, his wife's mother, and his six children, protesting. Will the good neighbour use good language? No, the good neighbour will use bad language. Will the bad language of the good neighbour be very wrong? Yes, the bad language of the good neighbour will be very wrong, but it will not be unnatural.
On the Cards.
M'Carthy a-cudgelling Healy now starts,
And Healy mild Justin remorselessly drubs.
Alas, that long over-due "Union of Hearts,"
Will become a Collision of Clubs!
Monopoly.—M. Max O'Rell, who has commonly "a guid conceit o' himsel'," and shows it, with more than Scottish—or, as he says, Scotch—simplicity, dislikes the monopolist egotism shown in the phrase "an English gentleman." "A gentleman of France" would perhaps less shock his fine altruistic sensibilities. He suggests that speaking of a courteous Scot we dub him "an English gentleman," but were he a murderer should call him "a Scotch murderer." Perhaps he will write a new book, and call it "John Bull and his Bile." "It is wonderful" (he continues) "how John Bull manages to monopolise all that is good, and let the rest of the world partake of what he does not want." Well, not entirely, perhaps. For example, John Bull does not wish to "monopolise" Max O'Rell himself, though, of course, he is "good," and full of "good things."
"The Sooner the Better."