The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

" THE LONDON REVIEW" ON SLANG.—In Locke's
Essay on the Human Understanding, the author de-
votes two chaptees to the abuse of words. The first
and most palpable abuse of words, he says, in which
they are used without clear and distinct ideas ; the
second, when we are so inconstant and unsteady
in the application of them, that we sometimes use
them to convey one idea, sometimes another.
These definitions may be said to embrace the chief
characteristics of that free and easy phraseology
which pervades our modern English, to a greater
extent perhaps than any other language that has
ever found utterance, and which we describe by a
word whose derivation is uncertain and whose trans-
lation is impossible. For " slang," as understood to
mean the conventional expressions of a class or oc-
cupation, we may find a proper equivalent in French
or German; but the grotesque, and often inconsis-
tent idioms by which the rising generation are accus-
tomed to convey their ideas to each other—not only
in school and at college—not only in the hunting-
field and billiard-room, but in the conversation of
daily life and of polite society, represent an English
peculiarity which can only be described by an Eng-
lish name. It is in vain that mammas caution their
daughters against these improprieties of speech. It
is in vain that old gentlemen of the Georgian era
lament the corruption of their native tongue. The
use of slang is daily becoming more general. The
significance of a dialect, formerly adopted by sport-
ing men alone, is now recognised in the transaction
of ordinary business. Epithets which would have
been utterly unintelligible to our grandfathers are
now introduced in the gravest colloquy, and may be
even found in our dictionaries. A few of the old
school still protest against the innovation. " By a
fast man I presume you mean a loose one," said the
late Sir Robert Inglis, in good-humoured irony to
some one who was describing a rake. We believe it
was the pcet Rogers who declared that to speak
of a " good fellow" was to utter an anomaly,
because the terms were incompatible. In his
younger days the word " fellow" was chiefly used to
express contempt. Such objections seem pedantic
indeed in 1866. The cause of the modifications
which our familiar vocabulary has undergone during
the last twenty years is not difficult to understand.
Without for an instant comparing the style of mo-
dern English authors with that of their predecessors,
which would be simply begging the question, it must
be evident to every one that far more English has
been read and written within that period than in
any previous period of similar extent. Our lan-
guage is by no means a fertile one, and there is a
growing impatience of words and phrases which,
with the enormous increase of our light literature,
have become so hackneyed that their very appear-
ance is suggestive of a platitude. It is no wonder
then that novelists, at all events, are tempted- to
avail themselves of curt and significant synonyms,
which, while they are thoroughly understood
by the million, have a certain freshness in print
that not unfrequently passes for originality. The
origin of slang may, in a great measure, be traced
to a growing dislike of conventionalities, and that
phase of insincerity which takes the form of polite
utterance. When we hear one man say of another
that he is a very worthy person, we may put our
own construction on the remark ; but if he calls him
a " brick," we feel sure that the eulogy is sincere.
In the days of Sir George Beaumont an amateur
would have described the exquisite chromatic har-
monies
of a picture. In the language of a modern
studio it would be " a stunning bit of colour."
Among the various objections which. have been
urged against the use of slang is that it often
falsifies the real meaning of a word, and
certainly such expressions as " awfully kind,"
" a jolly bad cold," or " no end of a muff,"
would be exceedingly difficult to translate. How
utterly inadequate such an idiom as prendre la clef
des champs is to express our British notion of cutting
one's stick ! But it is, after all, only a temporary
misadoption of the Queen's English which the use
of slang permits. In the.ilays of Steele and Addi-
son, a handsome, dark-complexioned man was styled
a " pretty black gentleman." In Mr. Canning's time,
a good joke was considered " monstrous killing."
But the original value or significance of these words
has not abated a tittle in consequence, of this per-
verted application. To sporting phraseology we
are indebted for many instances of modern slang.
" Hedging" a matter, " backing" a man, " walking
over" at elections, ani, of course, Lord Palmer-
ston's "judicious bottle-holding," are all derived
from this source. From the cricket-field we get
" bowled out" and " stumped ;" but the former
expression seems to indicate the discovery of some
misdeameanour rather than a loss of office, while
the latter may be taken to mean not so
much a complete failure as a temporary check.
Slang terms of approbation come from various
sources. A' man at the top of his profession is
called A 1. This, with the appellation of " clipper,"
savours evidently of salt water. Somehow or other,
all those which are borrowed from railway transit

have a tinge of meanness about them which it is
difficult to define. The idea of a man's getting on
" like steam" is, to our mind, very unpleasant. Of
the two modes of progression we should certainly
prefer " getting oh like a house on fire." Again, the
expression, " first class" is always on the. lips of a
snob. It is only exceeded in vulgarity by the word
"prime," which should never be applied in praise of
anything but cheese, or by anybody but a cheese-
monger. The word " swell," in a laudatory sense,
and with reference to a man's accomplishments,
seems generally recognised. Thus, we may say of
Jones, the undergraduate, that he is a swell at
Greek iambics or cricket. If he has paid great
attention to his toilet for an evening party,
he may be described with perfect propriety as
a " terrific swell." But if lie is entitled to
write "honourable" before his name, he must not be
called a swell on that account. Indeed, all slang
words, as " gent," " nob," &c., employed to repre-
sent a social grade, become offensive. No one,
whether he plays cards or not, can object to hear his
friend called " a trump." It is a good, honest
epithet in slang. So is " stunner," though it is less
refined. To speak of a man as a " muff" is a good-
natured way of describing his stupidity. Public-
school boys know such and such a " fellow." At
Oxford and Cambridge you know a " man" (never
gentleman : cela va sans dire). Since the publication
of Leech's famous sketch, thg word " party " is
sometimes used in joke—out of the City ; but the
worst expression of individuality is " chap," which
has long been given up to shopmen. Shop slang is,
by the way, always detestable. "We can do you
that scarf at four and nine," " nice thing in turn-
downs," and so forth. Retail dealers have an ellip-
tical manner of expressing themselves, which, to the
uncommercial ear, is very unsatisfactory. At the
China warehouses, for instance, they talk of " ele-
gant cut sherries" and " neat green (h) ocks," when
they really mean the vessels which are to hold that
wine. The brevity and assurance of that unplea-
sant notice, " TERMS :- CASH," which one sees at the
top of certain tradesmen's bills, must, we think,
offend even the most punctual customer. It is so
horribly laconic and to the point. Drawing-room
slang deserves a separate consideration, which we
have hardly space to give. It is wonderful to think
how quickly young ladies pick up Bohemian and
Turfy words from their brothers, and the readiness
with which they apply them—how they will " trot
out" their partner in a quadrille, " twig' the general
points of his character, and are " down upon" his
weaknesses. " Piccadilly weepers don't fetch me
at all," said an artless young thing at a ball not long
ago, meaning to express her dislike to the long
whiskers of her vis-à-vis. " Fetching one" is an
Americanism. Another bit of Yankee slang was
admirably rendered not long ago by Mr. Punch, in
a sketch of a Transatlantic belle who declined a
second helping at supper, because she guessed she
was pretty well crowded already." We have even
heard of an English girl who familiarly alluded to
her father's dinner party as a " blow-out," but this
is positively too dreadful for belief, and if we may
venture to express an opinion, it must be a very
mild form of slang indeed which we can tolerate •
from the lips of a woman.

THE " SPECTATOR" ON THE " SATURDAY RE-
VIEW'S" DIATRIBE ON LORD RUSSELL.--The Satur-
day Review of last week wrote, what is very
unusual with it, an article on Lord Russell which
was not merely petty and spiteful, but petty and
spiteful without that amount of common candour
and common sense with which men of the world
usually season their bitterest attacks, since they
know that, except by the help of such candour and
sense, they fail to obtain an attentive hearing even
for their most telling sarcasms. It is not because
we believe that this very savage and yet rather
feeble attack on Lord Russell will get much serious
consideration from the public that we wish to say a
few words in answer to it on a statesman who has
earned so many great claims on our gratitude, in
spite of the serious political blunders of which he
has undoubtedly been guilty. But such an attack
as this—so furious and so blind—reminds us of the
public duty of showing our greater statesmen some
gratitude while they live, and not reserving it alto-
gether for their obituaries. If the feeble-forcible
invective of the Saturday Review had been published
on occasion of Lord Russell's death, all England
would have been indignant. We cannot see why
it should be less resented because it happens to
appear at a moment when the subject of it is still
capable of feeling pain from the literary vitriol-
thrower, than it would be if the burning and blind-
ing fluid had been sprinkled over a corpse. When
a paper of high culture, ability, and influence writes
of such a man as Lord Russell that it is
almost true to say of him that he touched nothing
which he did not disfigure—that is what is con-
veyed, we suppose, by the assertion that " the re-
verse" of the saying " Nihil tetigit quod non orna-
vit" is almost true of Lord Russell—that "finding
Liberalism all but marble, he has left it mire and
clay,"—that he has been " cold, dictatorial," " dull,
unsympathetic, and pompous" as a statesman, the
last epithet at least being singularly ill chosen for
the curt, crusty, acute style of Lord Russell's states-
manship—perhaps the Saturday Review meant a
trifle priggish, which is a very different thing, and
much less hollow—that his career has been "an
ample succession of occasions for failure, occasions
which he has made the most of,"—finally, that " he
has lived longer than the ordinary age of man only
to discredit principles and break up associations
which it had taken two centuries of struggle and
difficulty to organise"—when such a paper as the
Saturday Review writes thus Of a statesman like
Lord Russell it is time, we think, for those who'd°
not wish to see.public gratitude quite out of date to
say something of the greater aspects of Lord Rus-
sell's political life, and prove that we see through
the petty malice of such a criticism as this by some-
thing more than contemptuous silence. When the
Saturday Reviewer" restrains his positive hatred
for a moment to contrast Lord Russell unfavour-
ably with his "great (chiefly because successful)
predecessor," he no doubt reflects- better the imme-
diate impression of the public mind than by
all this pseudo-epigrammatic vituperation. No
doubt, in sonic great qualities, Lord Russell was
Lord Paimerston's inferior. He was his inferior
in personal generosity as a party leader. He
was his inferior, we think, in the kind
of pluck which is needful to stem the tide of tem-
porary unpopularity and disgust. Lord Russell
has always had a tendency to turn with a turn-
ing tide. He would not have gone to Compiegne
like Lord Palmerston, at the very time when he had
fallen from power in consequence of too close an
adhesion to the policy of the Emperor of the French.
He gave voice to the first childish burst of rage
against the Papal agression in 1850, and he sank
his voice again with the sinking voice of the public,
directly he was aware that the spasm was over. He
deserted his colleagues in 1855 at the first breath of
popular rage against the mal-administration of the
army in the Crimea ; he burst forth with the first
notes of the explosion of popular indignation against
Russia for her treatment of Poland in 1863, and col-
lapsed when he found that the public opinion would
not sustain him in anything more than an angry
speech ; he threatened as all England was threatening
when Austria and Prussia broke faith with Den-
mark in 1861, and humiliated himself as all Eng-
land humiliated herself when it appeared that we
should have to go to war alone for Denmark or not
at all. In all these instances, and in the tendency
which they all exhibit to follow rather than to
guide popular feeling, to recede with it as well as
to advance with it, no doubt Lord Russell has
shown himself Lord Palmerston's inferior. He
has shown less tenacity of individual judgment
whenever there has been any danger of a temporary
breach between his own views Sand those of the
public. But admit these two points of realinferio-
rity to Lord Palmerston, inferiority in personal ge-
nerosity as a party leader, and in tenacity offindi-
vidual judgment wheii public opinion seemed to
turn against him, and yet we do not doubt for a
moment, we should question- whether any compe-
tent and impartial critic could doubt, that Lord
Russell's name as a statesman will rank far higher
with the future historians of our time than Lord
Palmerston's. The latter no doubt died at the
climax of his popularity, while Lord Russell has
long culminated, and long been on the decline. But
compare the substantial achievements of the two
statesmen, nay, compare even their political cha-
racters apart from their achievements, and it is
scarcely possible to hesitate for
a moment as to
which of the two weighs the heavier in English his-
tory. Lord Palmerston's personal achievements are
at most three—his defeat of the French- policy in
Syria iu 1840, of the Russian policy in Tur-
key in 1853, and the alliance with the Em.
peror of the French by the help of which the last
success was achieved. There is no doubt that the

Dano-German fiasco in 1864 was as much due to
Lord Palmerston as to Lord Russell. The one
talked as big in the House of Commons—the
" Cambyses' vein," Mr. Disraeli called it—as the
other wrote in his despatches. But the diplomatic
triumph over the French policy for Italy in
1860 was certainly due more to Lord John Russell
than to Lord Palmerston. No Foreign Minister
was ever better abused than he during that
important year, and] though cordially sup-
ported by his chief, the Prime Minister, all the
most important despatches of that period were un-
mistakably due to Lord John Russell's keen sym-
pathy with the popular Italian cause. And for the
American foreign policy of the Liberal Government
during the difficult and dangerous time of the civil

war, Lord Russell was far more responsible than
Lord Palmerston. It was his thorough sympathy
with the freemen of the North that alone averted

a eerious quarrel between England and the United

_
States, at a time when Lord Palmerston took ne
pains to conceal that all his private sympathies were
with the Confederates. If the achievements of the
two men were estimated only by the success of their
foreign policy, we should say that Lord Russell's,
in spite of the Polish and German fiascos, had NO
as successful, if not more fruitful of permanently
great results, as Lord Palmerston's. The "meddle-
and-muddle" policy was more or less common to
both. But in saving Italy from Confederation and
subservience to France, and in saving England from
a war with the Free States of America, Lord Rus-
sell has achieved more than will balance Lord
Palmerston's political successes in Syria, in Turkey,
in Greece. And the reason is that Lord Russell's
successes were founded on a more tenacious and in-
tense sympathy with the cause of popular self-ge-
•vernment than Lord Palmerston's. The questions.
of Syria and Turkey were questions of a traditional
foreign policy, those of Italy and America were
questions of constitutional principle. There was a
wire of popular creed at the bottom of Lord Ras"
sell's most successful Foreign-office achievements
which was wanting in Lord Palmerston's, whose
creed was never half so strongly and vividly defined,
or based on strong genuine principle, as Lord Rus-
sell's.

THE " EXAMINER " ON THE BALLOT.—A
rity of the new Parliament, that directed provisions
against bribery to be introduced into a Bill which it
did not intend to pass, has with perfect consistency
rejected Mr. 11. Berkeley's proposal to adopt the
vote by ballot in default of successful legislative
measures for the repression of corrupt practices.
Having charged a sinking ship with their endeavours
for purity of election, they opposed the only effec-
tual means for the object. Yet there is a vague
desire for some check to corruption, not from anY
great dislike to the thing itself, but from its effect
upon the expenses.of elections, which are becoming
intolerably heavy, and such as few purses can bear.
But much as these expenses are grudged, grudged
incomparably more is the freedom of choice which
the Ballot would give to the elector. That is all
emancipation which will be strenuously resisted
under cover of claptraps about British manliness
and spirit. the short answer to the objection that
the Ballot is un-English is, that bribery and intimi-
dation are vices peculiarly English, requiring an un-
English corrective. The practice of clubs is cited, but
we prefer taking the bull by the horns, and meeting
the opprobrium of the un-English, whatever it rnal,
be, with the incomparably more real and
great opprobrium of the offences to be deal with.
We have repeatedly shown in this journal that
every moral objection made to secret voting applies.
with greater force to open voting. T'ce elector
bribed or intimidated lies in his suffrage, and plays,
the hypocrite in pretences in conformity with the
purchased or compelled vote. In the ballot there
would be this difference in the man's conduct, that
he would give the honest vote, which is what the
public wants, and the dissimulation would only
baulk the corrupter. But it would only be on the
first establishment of the ballot that the falsities
would remain with a difference. Soon no 011°
would think of asking questions about the vote, 6r
of hearing statements about it. The elector wilf
said he voted for a candidate would not be nine'
believed by that candidate, but he would hie
thoroughly believed by the opposing candidate, anu
perhaps requited accordingly. Blabbing would be
found in every way exceedingly detrimental. Ask
me no questions and I will tell you no lies, would
be the tacit understanding. The admirers of the
present system, who swallow its camel of deceit an,
strain at the gnat there might be in the ballot, shoald
be challenged to state how much truth and honest/
are to be found in a contested election of average
debauchery. How much of the professions are•
false, how much of the opinions are feigned, 110'i
many of the suffrages delivered against the con-
science, verdicts as it were against the evidence;
The most specious argument against the Ballot, and
yet flimsy enough, is the assumption that the frail"
chise is a trust, the faithful discharge of which is to
be secured by publicity. But there lies the peal
principii. If the franchise is a trust, the method 0
its discharge must be made consistent with its end,
and if publicity would be adverse to the honest per'
formance, public it should not be. The means to
the end are to be considered, and if publicity intro'
duces the sway of the foul influences, publicity is t°,
be shunned. It has its virtues and transcendent
virtues for many occasions, but here it counteracts
its object. If the object were to exercise voters in
the heroic virtues, and train them for martyrdoo,
the existing system would not be ill suited to its.
purposes. And, as we have often asked, where is
the responsibility for the faithful discharge of this
same trust? Who is ever called to account for 3
bad vote? nay, who is entitled to say that the vote
is bad? Opinion;'fudge. Opinion does not beer
on Jenkins, who has sold his vote for £2O ; or on
Thomson, who has given it to escape an ejection Or
the loss of custom. The most corrupt elector seeks
shelter against opprobrium in the opinion of his OW°
class. The opinion ascendant at the Man- in the
Moon is the opinion for him, and he needs no other.
If there had been the force in public opinion which
has been attributed to it, the electoral vices would
have been in course of steady abatement, instead
of which they are confessedly on the Increase'
We do not much care to dispute the nature of the `
franchise. If it be held to be a trust, we content'
that it must be discharged in the way conduciv• to
the free and honest choice. But we think the true:,
analogy is the juror's duty, which is obligatory a°,o
onerous. The suffrage should be, as the juryman ,0
verdict, delivered according to a conviction of tu
merits, without a care or a thought of praise er
blame for the performance of a strict public duty
And it was well remarked by Captain Vivian,
the debate ou Mr. Berkeley's motion, that though
the decisions of jurymen collectively are given
public, the judgments, or votes as it were, of 0, e
individuals remain secret. The declaration of teg
poll is analogous to the verdict, and there should
be no prying beyond it. We should see very strang,i°
verdicts if the deliberations of juries were submitte,).
to the supervisiln of the public. Mr. BerkeleYbS
annual motion must by nobody's patience so much
as his own, but his patience is equal to his ability'
Year after year he forcibly recals attention to tue
few and simple truths that justify a measure whieh
is thus being steadily put through the ordeal of 1013 b
opposition imposed in this country upon all Sig;
gestions of change, and ultimately rewarded "Wit'
success.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

NORWICH-SATURDAY.

There was a fair supply of wheat at this market to-dash
and more business transpired than of late at a reduction °
about is per qr. upon all qualities. Not much doing 112
other articles. The reports made concerning the CO
crops are still favourable, and with fine weather partial Cug
ting will commence in about a fortnight.
White wheat (weighing 641 b), 55s to 57s ; old red altto
weighing 651 b), 51s to 53s ; new red ditto (weigbrf.
601 b to 631 b), 51s to 52s ; best malting barley (weighlia
521 b to 531 b), 36s to 38s ; runs ditto (weighing 511 b to op-ti,;
34s to 365; distilling ditto (weighing 501 b to 521 b), 30'
32s ; oats, 24s to 26s ; beans, S7s to 39s ; peas (maple), 36$
to 38s per qr. Flour, 37s 6d per sack.

LEIOES TER SATURDAY.
Our corn market was sparingly supplied with wheat /°;.
day, and only a small business was done at is per qr. belt's
late rates. The quantity of barley shown was exceedioo 11
small, and prices were unchanged. Oats were in 3°'*s
supply, and the tone of the demand was healthy, at /3ta,
-
rates. There were few samples of beans on offer, and
treme rates were realised.
New white wheat, 56s to 61s ; new red, 52s to 576 • °
white, 55s to 608 ; old red, 50s to 56s per 36 stone. 'l34s
ley, for malting, 35s to 40s per qr.; grinding, 30s to 24
per 30 stone. Oats, old, —s to —s ; new, 27s to 33s per
stone. Beans, old, 52s to 54s ; new, 48s to 51s par 38 step°
Fine flour, 44s ; seconds, 38s to 40s per 20 stone.

YORK—SATURDAY.
We had a seasonable supply of wheat at market to-c 11;
and only a few samples changed hands at a decline of
fu
is per qr. In barley scarcely anything doing, and Pricii
were similar to those of last week. There was a 5c3,,,,,0
show of oats, which moved off at fully late prices.
demand for beans was firm, and prices had an upso
tendency. • 6
New white wheat, 54s to 60s ; new red, 50s to 54s poly
stone. Barley, for malting, 32s to 34s per qr. ; grin e:
32s to 34s per 30 stone. Oats, new, 28s to 30s per 24 st7ss.
Beans, new, 50s to 52s per 38 stone. Malt, 66s to "
Flour, 388 to 40s Per sack of 2801bs.

Births.
Vo•
CURE— On the 19th inst., at Abbott's Roding, Onger,
Laurence Capel Cure, of a daughter.
CuitwEN—On the 20th inst. at 11, Hollies-street'CavendiAr
square, the wife of E. Curwen, Esq., of a son. 01/
GLENNIE —On the 20th inst., at Chandos-street, Caveudi
square, the wife of W. R. Glennie, Esq., of a son.

Marriages.
HIEDE—HENDERSON—On the 19th inst., at the gi nr de
church of Great Stanmore, Commander E. T.
in.'-03;
R.N., to Louisa, only daughter of D. G. Henue—
Esq.
re%
THERE= —PERCEVAL On the 19th inst., at St. Lie°-i-11.
Hanover-square, Goring Apsley, yougest son o' ly
Treherne, Esq., M.P., to Marie Jane Kathleen, 4311
daughter of Philip Perceval, Esq.
Deaths.
BARRETT—On the 16th inst., at Seaton Carew,
Jeremiah Barrett, of Birmingham, aged 72.
CAPE —On the 20th inst., at Birdbrook, the Rev. Joseph
Cape, aged 72.
JOHNSON—On the 15th inst., Joseph Johnson, of APOobi,
Lincolnshire, aged 69.
MORRIS—On the 19th inst., at Blaekheath, George o'v
Esq., of Royal-crescent, Notting-hill, aged 54. COI
MARSHALL —On the 19th inst., at 6, Marine-tarps
Brighton, Mrs. Mary Marshall, aged 80.

London : Printed and Published by WILLIAM ANV:
of No. 112, Strand, Painter. at Tan SuN Otbce, No. 01
Strand, in the Precinct of: the Savoy,' in the C.
Middletoz.7-Monclay, July 23, 1800.