The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-25 00:00:00

SKETCHES AT RANDOM.

" JOE."

The reader who should hastily conclude, from the
:onosvliabic laconicism of this title, that it desig-
tcd nothing of moment, would manifest consider-

1.)le shallopness of understanding and superficiality
of ju:!ginent. We shall elicit from it a character,
and show each letter to be potent with interest.
The characters of Shakspeare have been . pre-
erFiinently lauded by certain profound critics, as so
many heads of classes ; while other no less sapient
commentators have professed to find the main ex-
c.llence of those characters in their personal indi-
is
ity. As Sir :Roger de Coverley would say,
is much to be said on both sides." But we
to assure all who read these our " Sketches"
e intend not to liken them to the matchless
its of our immortal dramatist, in anything but
hat they embrace at once, delineations of in-
'als, and descriptions of classes.
The English are a gastronomical nation. We
to this not so much as a truism, which, for some
Curies, has been notorious, but as a fundamental
I universally admitted axiom on which to base
ev, logical deductions.
With the French, who dine on soup nzaigre,
'cassees—with the Italians who are contented
acids and olives ; dinner is by no means a
bus anir. With us English, however, our
are important, nay, they are an essential
lent of our national character. To an Eng-
ler is the most important epoch in his
. ; the event which gives to the whole
t period of his diurnal existence—its

this

story

To those who may be somewhat startled by this,
,ur masticatory philosophy, we would recall Dr.
Johnson's honest enthtviasm, when he declared ern-
" Sir, I mind my stomach." Slight
reflection would convince every one of the truth of
the .c'srcat lexicographer's maxim. As the influence

the body on the mind is perhaps stronger than
that. of tilt; mind on the body (for the correctness of
which we confidently appeal to daily experience)._
-liriugh what agency can that influence " be more
powerfully exercised than by the medium of our—
, dinners."

The characteristic pugnacity of the British has
hecn ascribed by foreign nations to our carniverous
propensities ; and Gallic philosophers have not
scrupled to traca to our beef and mutton meals, our
indomitable and unconquerable courage. We think
there is much soundness in the argument.
That dinners exert a powerful influence on human
temper and disposition we have high authority for
averring. When a great hero has refused a request,
Shakspeare attributes it to his not having dined :
____ ,c When we have filled,
These pipes, and these conveyances of our blood,
With wine, and feeding, we have suppler souls
Than in our priest-like souls."
Tlif?rc never was a more penetrating observer of
human nature than the Bard of Avon. Is not this,
his theory, borne out by daily and hourly experi-
ence ? Who ever was denied a favour when it was
asked of a person who had just well-dined Not
we. And when is it that people are so unwontedly
liberal?—at charitable dinners; or, indeed, so marvel-
I ouslvgood humoured and benevolent ?—at dinners in
general. Hear Lord Byron :
" Of all appeals—although
I grant the power of pathos, and of gold,
Of beauty, flattery, threats, a shilling—no
Methods more sure at moments to take hold
Of the best feelings of mankind (which grow
Mnre tender, as we every day behold),
Than that all-softening, overpowering knell_..
The tocsin of the soul—the dinner-bell."
Now Byron is an impartial witness, forli. ed
to dine—on potatoes and soda-water. Had he
dined more substantially he would have been less
misanthropic, though perhaps not so poetical.
Ingenious speculations have been formed as to
the peculiar effects of different species of diet on
the human character. We ourselves would be
bound to make a: shrewd guess at the disposition
of any man if we were told how he dined. These,

however, are topics so weighty, and requiring such
research, that RI) decline entering into them at pre-
! sent.

But what have Dr. Johnson, and Shakspeare, and
Byron, to do with " Joe " ? Thus much : that they
have laid a foundation for three simple propositions—
Ft rat, that to Englishmen dinners are—vital : secondly,
aught pertaining to dinners, must therefore, be here
interesting : thirdly, that dining houses are in this
metropolis much in vogue : and fourthly, that con-
sequently those who minister therein, are worthy to
to be described. And herewith, we purpose to dis-
course upon a waiter. Yet we select not our speci-
men from the vulgar tribe of " Yes-sirs," and
Corning-sirs." No. Him of whom we are to
trot is no ordinary waiter (though he may wait at
ua or•dinarzy).. He is of the aristocracy of waiters—
tiie very elite of serving-men. He soars as high
above the common menials of his profession, as Sir
Astlev Cooper above the bunglers in surgery, or
Thall;er,g above the tyros in music.
Joe bath that innate sense of dignity which is
the invariable accompaniment of conscious superi-
orit,•. He offereth not himself to the vulgar gaze of
the canaille, who resort to the dining-room at the
plebeian hours of twelve and one. He reserveth
himself for those higher orders, who can defer the
Momentous meal till two. Then he cometh down,
arrayed in the glories of full dress. Yes, worked
cambric ehirt, and flowered silk vest, with a snow-
white handkerchief thrown over his left arm, he
•valks into the the room with the courtly air of a
Lord Chamberlain : with the condescending
affihility of a prince. He does not yet
mingle, in the actual business of the scene.
lle stands aside in the calm attitude of

attintive observation ; giving, perhaps, an oc-
casional direction to his subordinate officials.
When the more elevated dinners—the three o'clocks
—begin to arrive, Joe deigneth to "take orders."
But how ? " Aye, there's the rub I" Herein
chiefly Both Joe differ from the common herd. Does
he incoherently gabble over an unintelligible list of
dishes ? No : in euphonious accents, and with a
,of dignity, too, which exalts the subject
bov.e its customary grossness, he delivers the
catalogue, commencing, with judicious
at the plainer and more solid joints, rising
the impressive at the " roast pig," gliding into
soft at the mock turtle, becoming musical at
Partridge," and positively eloquent, at the
The common waiter merely runs
gh an undistinguisliable variety of eatables :
is a feeling of coarse grossness created by
You imagine yourself a mere feeding animal,
Joe reminds you of a connoisseur enumerating
e trasterpteces of art ; you feel a relief from the
iqiatin:? viiloarity of eating.
c.), when Joe asks 'you for your choice, your
Lied ideas, if vou have any, are not subjected to
,t repulsive shock which they experience when a
c-minded wretch of a waiter puts to you roughly
question, " Roast mutton and taturs," or,
Biied beef and carrots ?" Neither is the fasti-

ison;

thro

tiler

dices appetite tortured by the revolting repetition of
sotre much-loathed dish—calves' liver and bacon,"
or pork and sausages." Joe is a skilful advocate.
He etimuneratei the different viands, with caution
and delicacy—watches carefully your countenance
all the while, and notes the effect which each arti-
cle produces—wisely refrains from pressing that
r „hid, appears to excite aversion—awaits your se-
Ilection with deferential and considerate silence—
resorts not to the degradation of "puffing,"
till pressed to give his opinion as to the
merits of rival dishes, which he does with
unimpeachable discrimination of judgment and
eiegant appropriateness of terms—as though
criticising a cliff dceuvre of Raffaers, or a work
of Scott's—and with strict impartiality also—unless
one of the dishes he knows to be not ready, or to
have vanished, when he will throw the whole

weight of his eloquence into the opposite scale, and
never fails of success.

We consider Joe a master of rhetoric—talk of
Cicero and Demosthenes, or Burke and Brou,gham
—they might " wield fierce democracies," or
f' charm listening senates"—but could any of them
have " seduced an Englishman from his pre-
, determined appetite ?—could they have allayed the
anger of one disapppointed gastronomist ? No.
But Joe has accomplished such feats. The be-
witching eloquence of his honied tones has con-
vinced a grumbling customer that meat rather better
than raw is " beautifully done"—that a substance
hearing a strong resemblance to well-macerated
brown d that
paper is fine-flavoured, juicy beef—an
j. the most impregnable potatoe that ever opposed its
share than adamantine hardness against the vain
assaults of knife, or fruitless thrusts of fork, is an
, 1
ezeellent, mealy
vegetable.
T he main distinction of a gentleman has been
i de9neil by some distinguished writer as self-posses-
sion• On this henry Joe Joe i
y s a gentleman of no or-

dinary pretensions. He is the very impersonation
of easy collectedness—the actual embodiment of all
that could be imagined of imperturbable coolness.
He paces the apartment with the noiseless softness
of a ball-room. He discourses with the most equa-
ble and gentle politeness. The fall of a soup-dish—
direst catastrophe of a dining-room—disconcerts him
not. The demolition of a wine bottle—most awful
of a waiter's calamities—shakes not his composure.
Undisturbed by the frightful clash and clatter of
gastronomy—undistracted by the multiplicity of con-
tradictory calls—he issues his orders with brief pre-
cision and unfailing exactness.
Joe is a " great arithmetician." A good deal
has beeen written about men who could calculate
decimals and " square the cube root, without the
use of pen or pencil, paper or slate. But their
attainments sink into nothing when viewed in com-
panion with Joe's. Let any person who wishes to
see practical arithmetic in perfection behold Joe
in the very hurry and press of business—every
moment bringing with it a fresh " call," or a new
order"—coolly estimating the debt of each person,
with no other preparation or opportunity of calcula-
tion than that afforded by the bare enumeration of
a lone list of items. Joe was never known to
make an error—on his own side. .Where will
such a bright exemplification of Cocker be found.
Joseph Hume?—No. He might aspire to the simple
operation of " roast beef, plum-pudding, bread,
and potatoes ;" but he never could achieve the
complicated problem of soup, fish, flesh, fowl,
three different vegetables, four different wines,
pastry ad libitum, sauces ad i7!finitunz—all which
we have seen Joe, with marvellous celerity, accom-
plish.
Joe is a philosopher—he has studied in that
loftiest school—human nature. We once were
curious enough to interrogate Joe as to the ma-
chinery whereby he was enabled to keep the com-
bined accounts of so many dozen individuals, as
often dine under his directions at one and the same
time. Instead of enlightening us as to some un-
known rule in arithmetic, or some wondrously swift
method of book-keeping, he told us that he left it
to each gentleman's honour. " But are there not
sometimes suspicious characters ?" " Yes ; but I
find them out directly, and keep a sharp look out
upon them." " And were you never done, Joe ?"
" Not of a single plate," was the triumphant re-
joinder. Hence we gather a consolatory refutation
to those who reason on the entire and universal
depravity of human nature. But what a power of
mental perception must Joe's eye possess, in an
instant to detect premeditated swindling and dor-
mant Dando-ism !—Worthy of Richelieu
It would take a volume, or a newspaper, to deli-
neate the manifold excellencies of Joe. We can
only mention one more—the manner in which he
receives the fees of office. This is a most delicate
point ; it affords us at once a test by which to dis-
criminate the gentleman waiter from the vulgar.
Equally removed from sordid grasping and fawning,
he accepts the penny with proud indifference—
the twopence he deigns to acknowledge with a
condescending nod—to the more liberal threepence
he graciously accords a dignified " Thank you,
Sir." Where is the scene of Joe's glories ?—East
of Temple-bar.

THE RUSSELL ANTI-REFORM

ARGUMENT.

(From the Weekly True Sun.)

The reply of Lord John Russell to Mr. Hume's
speech on Household Suffrage is a specimen of
disingenuousness so flagrant that, even after all our
experience of the depths to which Whiggery can
descend, it plunges his Lordship lower than ever in
our estimation. It is a speech replete with the very
reasonings and assertions that were employed by
the Tories against his,own Bill, and that, if they be
justly employed now, were not less justly employed
on that occasion. If Lord John be honest in them,
he ought not merely to oppose Mr. Hume's mo-
tion, but to move the repeal of the Reform Bill.
He should confess and do penance. There is no
escape for his wisdom or honesty. And it would
he more manly to come forward and say, " I see
my error ; I acknowledge the gross ignorance of my
former pleadings, or the delusion I passed upon the
people in my sham Reform, and I beg pardon of
the Cause of Corruption and of the gentlemen
opposite for the offences which I now fully retract."
The Tories perhaps will forego this humiliation for
the sake of the service his Lordship renders by his
doctrine of finality.
One great argument relied upon by his Lordship
is precisely that which the Tories ceaselessly urged
against the abolition of nomination boroughs. Only
it was really a stronger argument as applied to indi-
vidual nomination, than it is now as applied to very
small constituencies. The use of these small con-

stituencies is, he says, that in "periods of great po-
pular excitement, persons of very great talent who
might have rendered themselves unpopular in large
constituencies might be enabled to get into Parlia-
ment." How far it is good that public responsi-
bility should be thus defeated, the public will be
baffled, and the punishment which public opinion
awards, be nullified or reversed, we shall not now
inquire. Enough to say that the process is in
direct defiance of the principle of representa-
tion. But supposing'the evil to be a good,
as Lord J. Russell assumes, the proprietary Peer,
or other boroughmonger, was a fitting agent for its
accomplishment. He saved his nominee the forms
of election and ignominy of defeat. He made his
man of much talent a legislator, on the strength of
his own personal appreciation of individual desert.
And many reasons can be imagined why a borough-
monger, whether Peer or untitled capitalist, might,
with all the honesty of his nature, think well of a
candidate of whom the public thought ill. But
not so with Lord John's little constituencies.
Why should a small constituency take to a
man whose conduct has offended a large
constituency ? If "persons of very great talent"
conduct themselves so that the majority
of a constituency of five thousand voters deem
them ineligible, the chances are that a majority of
a constituency of one hundred voters will think
them ineligible also? Opinion is not contingent on
a man's belonging to a club of five thousand mem-
bers, or to one of a hundred members. What
makes the rejected legislator stand a better chance
with the smaller number ? Corruption ! and
nothing else. It is easier to bribe the little majo-
rity than the large majority. The small boroughs
are a reserve for the especial purpose of corruption
on behalf of those whom the people reject. Lord
John's plan is worse than the old Tory plan, just
in the degree that electoral corruption is worse than
direct individual nomination.

Lord John does not wish these corruption re-
serves to return " an unfair proportion of members."
What is their fair proportion ? The constituen-
cies numbering fewer than 1,000 votes each, return
219 Members out of the 360 Borough Members
of Great Britain. They possess three-fifths of the
entire borough representation I There are three-
fifths for corruption, and two-fifths for honesty !
A reserve of three-fifths for persons of " very great
talent," but of very great unpopularity, who are
unacceptable to the other two-fifths I If this be
reform, what, in the name of Heaven, is corruption ?
There is one class of the " persons of very great
talent" for whom this ingenious theory makes no
provision : viz., those who have scruples about em-
ploying the reculiar means of persuasion adapted to
small constituencies. Lord John leaves unpopular
honest ability under the ban. He takes no care of
talent when it keeps company with integrity. An
honest man might accept the nomination of a
boroughmonger ; an honest man will not set about
bribing a constituency. In this respect also is
the Russell reform worse than the old Tory system.
There is a hint in his Lordship's speech that should
not be thrown away. Alluding to the artisans, he
observes, " if that very important class had entered
into his (Mr. Hume's) scheme, it might have in-
creased the inducements of the House to adopt his
plan, but there was nothing of the kind." There is
in this allusion the dishonesty that pervades the
speech. Had all the Chartists in the kingdom peti-
tioned for Household Suffrage, Lord John very
well knows that his own disposition, and the
disposition of the House would have been just the
same. He knows very well that, not considered
as a restriction, but considered as an extension,
Household Suffrage is a portion of the Chartist
plan. Universal Suffrage includes Household Suf-
frage as the greater includes the less. It has all the
weight that attaches, in Lord John's real opinion,
to the authority of the Chartists and artisans ; and
it has the additional weight of all those classes who
are for a broader suffrage, but who stop short of
its universality. The pettifogging sophism
recoils therefore on its author. The trick
is evident. The fallacy is glaring. Nor is

it other than a painful and humbling spectacle
to see the author of the Reform Bill reduced to
such petty shifts by his nonsense about its finality,
and to wear the characteristic disingenuities of a
Peel repeated by a Russell.
But though untrue to himself in this remark, it
yet has some truth in itself, as to the advantage, not
of implied opinion but of direct and energetic co-
operation. Had the Chartists and middle classes
combined, they might have commanded the repeal of
the Corn-laws. Were the Chartists and middle
classes to combine, they might command the House-
hold Suffrage. And what shorter road to Universal
Suffrage? If the answer be "by a fight," we must
confess our doubts.

FOREIGN TRADE OF FRANCE

DURING THE YEAR 1838.

[ln the chief commercial journal of France, the
Commerce of March 18, there is an excellent paper
on this subject, of which the following is an abriged
account. The writer appears to have drawn up the
statement with great care and impartiality, point-
ing out, at the same time, the gross defects of their
present prohibitory system, and the new measures
which a liberal Ministry should adopt to increase
the resources of the country.]

The trade of France with foreign countries and
her colonies suffered great depression during the
year 1837. The amount of imports remained
nearly stationary, while the exports had fallen off
about one-fifth, chiefly in articles of manufacture,
and the value of goods imported and entered for ex-
portation had decreased one-third, being in the pro-
portion of 208 to 147. This decrease has arisen
from various causes—from the defects of commer-
cial legislation, the faults of the Government, but
chiefly from the commercial crisis in the United
States. An improvement had been expected in
1838, and as regards imports this has taken place,
the amount, as far as can be ascertained, having
exceeded that of 1836, but there is no ground for
believing that the exports, which had fallen off to the
amount of four millions and a half sterling, have
resumed their former activity.
The first official document which holds out a fa-
vourable prospect is the return of the Customs'
duty. The revenue from this important branch of
indirect taxes in 1837 amounted to ab0ut4,500,000/.,
and in 1838 to 4,720,0001., higher than it had been
at any former period, and it is worthy of remark that
this increase has taken place, notwithstanding the
reduction, or more properly speaking, in conse-
quence of the reduction of duty. In fact, the increase
in the Customs has taken place chiefly on foreign
wool, which produces a revenue three times as
large as it did before the reduction. In England
the Customs give an annual gross revenue of
22,000,0001., and in France, under proper Custom-
house regulations, it might certainly produce a
third or even a half of that amount.
At the head of the raw materials which form
the ground work of French commerce and industry
may be placed cotton, wool, and silk. The manu-
facture of cotton goods, which remained stationary
in 1837, made a considerable advance in 1838, the
quantity of cotton imported in the latter year
having increased from 94,600,000 lbs. to
112,200,000 lbs. or nearly one-fifth. Great as
this is, however, it is considerably smaller than
the increase which has taken place in England
during the same period, which amounted to not
less than 59,400,000 lbs. The total quantity im-
ported into England in 1838 was 418,000,000
lbs., and if we take the ten years between 1828
and 1838, we find that while the amount
in France has risen from 59,400,000 lbs. to
112,000,000 lbs., in England it has risen from
183,000,000 lbs. to 418,000,000 lbs., so that the
proportional increase is greater in the latter country,
though the cotton manufactures there had already
reached a much greater height. Speaking only of the
year 1838, it was nearly four times as great in Eng-
land as in France, and this comparison shows what
an expansion may yet be given.to our manufac-
turing system. Havre is still the great cotton
market. The imports at Marseilles in 1838 re-
mained stationary, and Havre at present imports
three times as much cotton as all the other seaports
in the kingdom.
The woollen manufacture has increased still
more than that of cotton. The importation of fo-
reign wool, which in 1837 amounted to 22,000,000
lbs., had reached 33,000,000 lbs. in 1838, and
notwithstanding the competition thus caused be-
tween foreign wool and the home grown, the latter
has still maintained its price, thus demolishing at
once all the arguments raised by the interested
landowners in 1834, against a reduction of the
duty in foreign wool. -Notwithstanding this vast
increase the trade still goes on improving,
and the Treasury reaps its share of the benefit.
Previous to the year 1834 the import duty was 33
per cent., and produced a revenue of about 120,0001.,
while in 1838 the duty being reduced to 22 per
cent., it produced 400,0001. Thus, by reducing
the duty one-third, the revenue has been trebled.
The importation of raw silk has kept pace with
that of cotton and wool. In 1838 the total value
of silk imported was 2,300,0001., an amount
greater than it reached at any former period, and
hopes, therefore, are entertained that the trade

begins to recover from the severe blow inflicted on
it by the panic in the United States. In 1837 the
quantity of silk goods exported had fallen off two-
fifths, as compared with that of the preceding year,
and the question is whether the returns for 183 S will
show that the trade has completely recovered from
this enormous depression ? =;* The accounts received
from Lyons certainly do not allow us to entertain
such a hope, and the more so as it appears, from
official documents, that the total value of imports of
all sorts into the United States has been only
112,000,000 dollars in 1838, while it was 189
millions in 1836, and even 140 millions in 1837.
The importation of indigo, cochineal, olive oil,
and other articles used in the manufacture of cot-

ton, wool, and silk has necessarily increased in pro
portion to the increase of the raw material.

' - The articles of commerce next in importance to
those used in the manufacture of cotton, woollen,
and silk goods, are undoubtedly the metals. Our
Custom House laws, it is well known, all but pro-
hibit the importation of iron. It is also well
known that these laws, originally made for the
supposed benefit of the iron masters, and hardware
manufacturers, have benefited only the aristocracy of
forest-proprietors. The price of wood now is three
times as high as it was twenty years ago, and our
amuedc ht
ba
on i
81
bprice industry
oif n
iron. N' ai n
Butstr struggles
even high against
c,
as tthbis
e
duty Eng England,
so,
d, we import
and
the
amount a certain
has quantitybe e
o o
li
tot
if e bothin
increased
efar
soemd
by the late trifling reduction of duty. When we
look at the ruinous effects of our laws relative to
iron and coal, we almost congratulate ourselves
that France produces no other minerals in any
considerable quantity. The importation of lead,
which fell in 1837 to 24,000,0001b5., is now
30,800,000113 s.; nearly as high as it was in 1836.
Copper which we draw entirely from abroad, has
increased lately one-third, and zinc has made a
still more rapid advance. In 1830 the
whole amount importedodidt
247000
teoxelebs.
4,400,00001 e wouldecl
lbs.have expected
Nowit is
about
the importation of coal,
1
the most important agent in creating manufactures,
to increase in the same proportion ; but such is not
the fact—the total increase being only 50,000
tons. Government must, therefore, see the neces-
sity of reducing still further the duty on foreign
coal ; or, at all events; equalizing it. Why should
the duty be a third higher at Dunkirk, than it is
at Toulon ? The city of Nantes 'complains with
reason of this inequality, which nothing can justify.
Indeed, so far from foreign importation injuring the
proprietors of coal-mines, the reverse would appear
to be the fact ; for the amount of the one always
bears the same proportion to the other. In 1827
the proportion of the two was as 5 to 11 ; in 1837, as
11 to 24, the quantity imported being always about
a half of that raised from the coal mines of
France. And why try to oppose a result which
springs from the very nature of things, and which
no tariff can defeat ? Notwithstanding all these
laws the great part of the north and of the sea-coast
of France is always supplied with foreign coal.
With regard to colonial produce there has been
a falling off in the consumption of colonial sugar
of more than 270,000 cwt., and the price in one
year only has fallen Bs. the cwt. The importation
of coffee remains nearly the same, 25,000,0001b5.,
but a great deal more is consumed in France.
Smuggling must supply a vast quantity when the
import duty is more than 100 per cent. In
England the consumption is about one pound
weight for each inhabitant, while in France it is
only about two-thirds of a pound.
The late Ministry, during the discussions on the