« ForrigeFortsett »
And, therefore, - Mr. Speaker — I, for one —
as I said before
many a dish.
II. - YORKSHIRE ANGLING. It happened once that a young Yorkshire clown, but newly come to far-famed London town, was gaping round at many a wondrous sight, grinning at all he saw, with vast delight; attended by his terrier Tyke, who was as sharp as sharp may be; and thus the master and the dog, d'ye see, were very much alike.
After wandering far and wide, and seeing every street and square, - the parks, the plays, the Queen, and the Lord Mayor, with all in which your "Cockneys " place their pride ; — and, being quizzed by many a city spark for coat * of country cut and red-haired pate, he came at length to noisy Billingsgate. saw the busy scene with mute surprise, opening his ears and wondering eyes at the loud clamor, and the monstrous fish, hereafter doomed to
full Close by him was a turbot on a stall, which, with stretched mouth, as if to pant for breath, seemed in the agonies of death. Said Lubin, “ What name, zur,
that fish call ?” “A tur. bot,” answered the sarcastic elf; a flat, you see - so something like yourself.” D'ye think,” said Lubin, “ that he 'll bite ? " “Why," said the fishman, with a roguish grin, “ his mouth is open; put your finger in and then you 'll know." Why, zur," replied the wight, "I should n't like to try; but there's my Tyke shall put his tail there, an' you like.” “ Agreed," rejoined the man, and laughed delight.
Within the turbot's teeth was placed the tail, and the fish bit with all its might.
The dog no sooner felt the bite, than off he ran, the dangling turbot holding tight. The astonished man began most furiously to bawl and rail ; but, after numerous escapes and dodgings, Tyke safely got to Master Lubin's lodgings. Thither the fishmonger in anger flow. Says Lubin, Lannon tricks on me won't do! I 'ze come from York to queer such flats as you ; and Tyke, my dog, is Yorkshire, too!” Then, laughing at the man, who sneaked away, he had the fish for dinner that same day.
* Give the oa, in this word, the full sound of long e, in note, &c. Speakers are apt to shorten it.
BEAUTIES OF THE LAW.
III. - SYMPATHY. A KNIGHT and a lady once met in a grove, -While each was in quest of a fugitive love; A river ran mournfully murmuring by, And they wept in its waters for sympathy. « 0, never was knight such a sorrow that bore !” “0, never was maid so deserted before ! ” “ From life and its woes let us instantly ily, And jump in together for company." They searched for an eddy that suited the deed, But here was a bramble, and there was a weed; “ How tiresome it is !” said the maid, with a sigh ; So they sat down to rest them in company. They gazed on each other, the maid and the knight; And they did not seem very averse to the sight: “ One mournful embrace,” said the youth, “ ere we die !" So, kissing and crying, kept company. “0, had I but wooed such an angel as you!” “0, had but my swain been one quarter as true ! “To miss such perfection how blinded was I !” Sure, now they were excellent company. At length spoke the lass, 'twixt a smile and a tear : “The weather is cold for a watery bier. When the summer returns we may easily die ; Till then let us sorrow in company."
IV. - BEAUTIES OF THE LAW.
1. — BULLUM versus BOATUM. What a profound study is the law! How shall I define it? Law is — law. Law is — law; and so forth, and hereby, and aforesaid, provided always, nevertheless, notwithstanding Law is like a country dance; people are led up and down in it till they are tired. It is like physic; they that take the least of it are best off. Law is like a homely gentlewoman; very well to follow. Law is like a scolding wife ; very bad when it follows us.
Law is like a new fashion ; people are bewitched to get into it: it is also like bad weather ; most people are glad when they get out of it. We shall now mention, in illustration, a case that came before us, the case of Bullum versus Boatum. It was As follows:
There were two farmers — farmer A and farmer B. Farmer A was seized or possessed of a bull; farmer B was seized or possessed of a ferry-boat. Now, the owner of the ferry-boat, having made his boat fast to a post on shore, with a piece of hay twisted rope-fashion, or, as we say, vulgo vocato, a hay-band, - after he had made his boat fast to the aforesaid post (as it was very natural for a hungry man to do) went up town to dinner. Farmer A's bull (as it was natural for a hungry bull to do) came down town to look for a dinner ; and, observing, discovering, seeing, and spying out, some turnips in the bottom of the ferry-boat, the bull scrambled into the ferry-boat, ate up the turnips, and, to make an end of his meal, fell to work upon the hay-band. The boat, being eaten from its moorings, floated down the river with the bull in it: it struck against a rock, beat a hole in the bottom of the boat, and tossed the bull overboard; whereupon, the owner of the bull brought his action against the boat for running away with the bull. The owner of the boat brought his action against the bull for running away with the boat. And thus notice of trial was given, Bullum versus Boatum, Boatum versus Bullum.
The counsel for the bull began with saying, “ My lord, and you, gentlemen of the jury, we are counsel in this cause for the bull. We are indicted for running away with the boat. Now, my lord, we have heard of running horses, but never of running bulls before. Now, my lord, the bull could no more run away with the boat than a man in a coach may be said to run away with the horses; therefore, my lord, how can we punish what is not punishable ? How can we eat what is not eatable? Or, how can we drink what is not drinkable? Or, as the law says, how can we think what is not thinkable? Therefore, my lord, as we are counsel in this cause for the bull, if the jury should bring the bull in guilty, the jury would be guilty of a bull."
The counsel for the boat observed, that the bull should be nonsuited, because, in his declaration, he had not specified what color he was of; for thus wisely, and thus learnedly, spoke the counsel : : “My lord, if the bull was of no color, he must be of some color; and, if he was not of any color, what color could the bull be of ?” I over-ruled this motion myself, by observing the bull was a white bull, and that white is no color; besides, as I told my brethren, they should not trouble their heads to talk of color in the law, for the law can color any thing. This cause being afterwards left to a reference, upon the award, both bull and boat were acquitted, it being proved that the tide of the river carried them both away; upon which I gave it as my opinion, that, as the tide of the river carried both bull and boat
BEAUTIES OF THE LAW.
away, both bull and boat had a good action against the waterbailiff.
My opinion being taken, an action was issued, and, upon the traverse, this point of law arose : How, wherefore, and whether, why, when, and what, whatsoever, whereas, and whereby, as the boat was not a compos mentis evidence, how could an oath be administered? That point was soon settled by Boatum's attorney declaring that, for his client, he would swear any thing.
The water-bailiffs' charter was then read, taken out of the original record in true law Latin ; which set forth in their declaration, that they were carried away either by the tide of flood or the tide of ebb. The charter of the water-bailiff was as follows: "Aqua bailiffi est magistratus in choici, sapor omnibus fishibus qui habuerunt finos et scalos, claws, shells, et talos, qui swimmare in freshibus, vel saltibus riveris, lakos, pondis, canalibus et well-boats, si' ve oysteri, prawni, whitini, shrimpi, turlutus solus ;” that is, not turbots alone, but turbots and soles both together. But now comes the nicety of the law; for the law is as nice as a new-laid egg. Bullum and Boatum mentioned both ebb and flood, to avoid quibbling; but, it being proved that they were carried away neither by the tide of flood nor by the tide of ebb, but exactly upon the top of high water, they were nonsuited; but, such was the lenity of the court, that, upon
their paying all costs, they were allowed to begin again de novo.
II. - DANIEL versus DISIICLOTH. We shall now consider the law (as our laws are very considerable, both in bulk and number) according as the statutes declare; considerandi, considerando, considerandum, and not to be meddled with by those that don't understand 'em. Law always expresses itself with true grammatical precision, never confounding moods, cases, or genders, except, indeed, when a woman happens accidentally to be slain; then the verdict is always brought in manslaughter.
The essence of law is altercation ; for the law can altercate, fulminate, deprecate, irritate, and go on at any rate. The quintessence of the law has, according to its name, five parts. The first is the beginning or incipiendum; the second, the uncertainty or dubitandum; the third, delay or puzzleendum ; fourthly, replication without endum ; and fifthly, monstrum et horrendum ; all which are exemplified in the following case of
DANIEL against DISHCLOTII. - Daniel was groom in the same family wherein Dishcloth was cook-maid; and Daniel, returning home one day fuddled, stooped down to take a sop out of the dripping-pan : Dishcloth pushed him into the dripping-pan, which spoiled his clothes ; and he was advised to bring his action against the cook-maid, the pleadings of which were as follow :
The first person who spoke was Mr. Serjeant Snuffle. He began, saying: "My lo'd, since I have the honor to be pitched upon to open this cause to your lo'dship, I shall not impertinently presume to take up any of your lod’ship's time by a roundabout circumlocutory manner of speaking or talking, quite foreign to the purpose, and not any way relating to the matter in hand. I shall, I will, I design to show what damages my client has sus tained hereupon, whereupon, and thereupon. Now, my lo'd, my client being a servant in the same family with Dishcloth, and not being at board wages, imagined he had a right to the fee-simple of the dripping-pan; therefore he made an attempt on the sop with his right hand, which the defendant replevied with her left, tripped us up, and tumbled us into the dripping-pan. Now, in Broughton's Reports,' Slack versus Smallwood, it is said, primus strocus, si' ne jocus, absolutus est provocus (that is, the first stroke, without joke, gives the provoke). Now, who gave the primus strocus,-- who gave the first offense? Why, the cook. She brought the dripping-pan there; for, my lo'd, though we will allow, if we had not been there, we could n't have been thrown down there, yet, my lod, if the dripping-pan had not been there for us to have tumbled down into, we could not have tumbled into the dripping-pan.”
The next counsel on the same side began with: “My lud, he who makes use of many words to no purpose has not much to say for himself; therefore I shall come to the point at once; at once and immediately shall I come to the point. My client was in liquor; the liquor in him serving an ejectment upon his understanding, common sense was nonsuited, and he was a man beside himself; as Dr. Biblibus declares, in his dissertation upon Bumpers, in the 139th fol. vol. of the Abridgment of the Statutes, p. 1286, where he says that a drunken man is homo duplicans, or a double man; not only because he sees things double, but also because he is not as he should be, profecto ipse he ; but is as he should not be, defecto tipse he.”
The counsel on the other side rose up gracefully, playing with his ruffles prettily, and tossing the ties of his wig about emphatically. He began with: “My lud, and you, gem'men of the jury, I humbly do conceive, I have the authority to declare, that I am counsel in this case for the defendant; therefore, my lud, I shall not flourish away in words; words are no more than filigree