Punch (45.1863)

186

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[November 7. 1863.

“ Oh yes, my dear, the advantage is—you can wear more Flowers for your Money, and the

Rain don’t spoil them.”

THE EXTREME OE COSSACK
BARBARISM.

Fancy the thrill of horror which must have
pervaded servants’ halls when the subjoined
extract from the letter of the Times special
correspondent at Warsaw, was read aloud by
young Buttons to Mr. John Thomas :—

“ A groom who was exercising his master’s horse near
one of the barriers was mistaken the other day by the
Cossacks for an insurgent, and knocked out of his
saddle and beaten before he could explain who and
what he was. Probably the Cossacks imagined his livery
to have been an uniform, for I remember a massacre of
house and farm servants which took place some months
ago on an estate in the Government of Lublin, in which
a gaudily dressed footman was reserved for special tortures
on the supposition that he must be the band-master.”

Exclusively domestic as are the feelings of
John Thomas, even John Thomas himself must
feel inflamed with indignation against the Rus-
sian barbarism which is regardless even of the
immunities of Plush. The idea that a gaudily
dressed footman, innocent even of impatience of
constitutional taxation, to which he is a stranger,
should he reserved by Cossacks for special tor-
tures on account of that garb which denotes his
superiority to all politics, cannot but disgust the
most indifferent John Thomas with such barba-
rians, and cause him to bless himself for the
livery which is exempt from the shoulder-knout.

Conundrum.

Sobr, Will ye till me, av ye plaze, what ’nd
be the proper toime whin Rag Fair ought to be
hild? Ye can’t, Sorr? Oi’ll till ye, thin; Rag
Fair, ye see, ought to be hild in Lint.

Yours, me boy, for iver, An Irish Owl.

ALLEGED BLACK MAIL AT NEWINGTON.

A Superior Dramatist has observed that even “the common execu-
tioner, whose heart the accustomed sight of death makes hard, falls not
the axe upon the humbled neck, but first begs pardon.” Mr. Calcraei
makes a point 0f shaking hands with the subjects on whom he is
operating, and he also perhaps at the same time apologises for the inconve-
nience to which he is going to put them by checking their respiration.
The taxgatherer is supposed to execute an office almost as odious as
the hangman’s with at least as much gentleness and civility as Jack
Ketch exhibits in the performance of his unpopular duty. If, however,
reliance can be placed on the subjoined particulars, the tax-collector
does not always emulate the urbanity of the Finisher of the Law. We
quote the report on which this remark is founded:—

“THE RATEPAYERS OP NEWINGTON AND THE COLLECTION OP TAXES.

“ Extraordinary Public Meeting.

“ Last night a Public Meeting of the ratepayers of the Parish of St. Mary’s, New'
ington, was convened at the Roebuck Tavern, Dover Road, to take into consideration
the alleged harsh, ungentlemanly, and overbearing conduct of the Arrears Collector
of the district. Mr. Dowle was called to the Chair.”

The Chairman explained to the meeting that the person whose con-
duct they were assembled to investigate, was one Alexander Wright,
a sub-collector, employed by the elected and recognised collector for the
district. Mr. Dowle added that this Wright had been only that day
bound over by Mr. Elliott to keep the peace for six months, “in
consequence of the manner in which he had treated a respectable
tradesman.” The following statement was then made in illustration of
Mr. Wright’s demeanour in taxgathering after a fashion the reverse
of suaviter m modo:—

“ Mr. A. W. M’Caul said that on the 31st of August Mr. Wright called at his
house in the evening, and asked for the Queen’s taxes. Mrs. M’Caul said that
they should be paid on the next morning. Mr. Wright said, ‘ You must pay this
moment,’ and was most overbearing. Mrs. M’Caul remonstrated, upon which he
said, in the rudest manner, ‘ I don’t want to speak to a thing like you,’ and called
in a man that was behind him.”

“The money was paid,” said the speaker, “but the violence of the
scene brought ” a serious illness on Mrs. M'Caul. lie proceeded to
say that:—

“ He (Mr. M’Caul) subsequently went to Wright, and demanded by what au-
thority he had made a disturbance in his house and done sucl} mischief, and Wright
had no warrant or other authority to produce. He found that Mr. Wright was in
the habit of calling for the taxes, and charging a shilling or 2s. for his trouble, and
that charge was not legal. The speaker proceeded to mention cases where he alleged
this had been done by Mr. Wright.”

The allegations against Mr. sub-taxgatherer Wright appear by Mrs.

M'Caul’s showing to amount to a graver charge than that of mere
brutality; namely that of exceeding his duty in collecting the Queen’s
taxes by levying black-mail on his own account. But this is an accusa-
tion which cannot be believed without evidence, and, to be sustained
by such evidence as the ensuing, of course requires that evidence to be
confirmed by oath :—

“ Mr. Woodward said that Mr. Wright had called upon him for taxes, and
demanded a shilling for his trouble, and would not give a receipt without it.

“ Mr. Barker, 113, Dover Road, said that Mr. Wright called on him for taxes,
and he went up to Mr. Wright's office with the money. There were six or eight
females there on a similar errand. Mr. Wright asked each of them for 2s. expenses.
They pleaded hard to he let off, but they had to pay. He asked him (Mr. Barker)
for 2s., but when it was refused he would not take the money, but said he would
levy. He (Mr. Barker) then called in a friend and said, ‘ Be you witness that I
tender the amount of the assessed taxes.’ Mr. Wright replied, ‘ I will take it from
you; but it is such men as you that make devils of men like us.’ (Laughter.) ”

In the narrative of Mr. Barker six or eight females are represented
as having been addressed by Mr. Wright with a demand that amounts
to little, if anything less, than “ Stand and Deliver !” and Mr. Barker
represents himself as having successfully resisted the proposal of an
alternative not essentially different from “ Your Money or your Life ! ”
“ Give me two shillings or I shall levy,” comes nearly to the same
thing. It must, however, be remembered that Mr. Barker was not
in a witness-box; and therefore Mr. Wright must, for the present,
be presumed to be innocent of the attempt, and the acts imputed to
him. At a mere meeting of ratepayers that gentleman was not
upon his trial. However:—

“ Several other Speakers having mentioned similar eases,

“ Mr. M’Caul moved a resolution, ‘ That this Meeting, having heard with indig-
nation, the method in which Mr. Wright conducts the business of the collection
of the taxes, appoints a Committee to wait on the board of guardians, to explain to
them the nature of the complaints against Mr. Wright, and to request that the
elected Collector be directed to discontinue his services.’ ”

Under Mr. M'Caul’s favour, his resolution did not go far enough.
Surely the law has a name and a requital for obtaining money by the
means which he imputes to Mr. Wright. Innocence of such extortion
does not merit the sack, and guilt deserves something very much
worse. If there are grounds to justify the resolution demanding
the discontinuance of Mr. Wright’s services, there are grounds for
a resolution that Mr. Wright’s proceedings shall be subjected to
legal investigation.

But only fancy the fact that:—

“ The Resolution having been seconded,

“ Mr. Snell, a vestryman, moved an amendment that the meeting should not
interfere between Mr. M’Caul and Wright. (Oh, oh!) All Collectors employ
brokers to frighten men out of their money. (Oh /)”