I now come to the other case, and I shall be very brief in my
observations. I mean that of him, who equally fond of flirting as the
former, has yet a lively fear of an action at law. Love-making with him
is a necessity of his existence--he is an Irishman, perhaps, and it is
as indispensable to his temperament as train-oil to a Russian. He
likes sporting, he likes billiards, he likes his club, and he likes the
ladies; but he has just as much intention of turning a huntsman at the
one, or a marker at the other, as he has of matrimony. He knows life is
a chequered table, and that there could be no game if all the squares
were of one colour. He alternates, therefore, between love and sporting,
between cards and courtship, and as the pursuit is a pleasant one, he
resolves never to give up. He waxes old, therefore, with young habits,
adapting his tastes to his time of life; he does not kneel so often
at forty as he did at twenty, but he ogles the more, and is twice as
good-tempered. Not perhaps as ready to fight for the lady, but ten times
more disposed to flatter her. She may love him, or she may not; she may
receive him as of old, or she may marry another. What matters it to him?
All his care is that _he_ shouldn't change. All his anxiety is, to let
the rupture, if there must be one, proceed from _her_ side. He knows in
his heart the penalty of breach of promise, but he also knows that the
Chancellor can issue no injunction compelling a man to marry, and that
in the courts of love the bills are payable at convenience.
Here, then, are the two cases, which, in conformity with the world's
opinion, I have dignified with every possible term of horror and
reproach. In the one, the measure of iniquity is but half filled; in the
other, the cup is overflowing at the brim. For the lesser offence, the
law awards damages and defamation: for the greater, society pronounces
an eulogy upon the enduring fidelity of the man thus faithful to a first
love.
If a person about to buy a horse should, on trying him for an hour or
two, discover that his temper did not suit him, or that his paces were
not pleasant, and should in consequence restore him to the owner: and
if another, on the same errand, should come day after day for weeks,
or months, or even years, cantering him about over the pavement, and
scouring over the whole country; his answer being, when asked if he
intended to purchase, that he liked the horse exceedingly, but that he
hadn't got a stable, or a saddle, or a curb-chain, or, in fact, some one
or other of the little necessaries of horse gear; but that when he had,
that was exactly the animal to suit him--he never was better carried
in his life. Which of these two, do you esteem the more honest and
more honourable? When you make up your mind, please also to make the
application.
[Illustration: 059]
A NUT FOR THE POLICE AND SIR PETER.
[Illustration: 060]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account