MISCELLANEOUS.

Evening Star, Volume III, Issue 851, 27 January 1866, Page 2

MISCELLANEOUS.

In a clever article in All the Year Routed , “Writing for Periodicals,” the following remarks occur? —“There is a class of beings of whose existence certain literary candidates do not seem to be aware. Still they are men of like feelings with ourselves, similarly constituted in all their limbs and organs. They have eyes like hours, only somewhat sharper, and fingers like ours, only quicker and nimbler. They have heads that can ache, when overworked, and tempers that -can fret when overtried. I mean compositors and printers’ readers. A writer should surely have some thought of them; for it is solely through their mechanical agency that his lucubrations are given to the world. A writer, sitting at an open window in the country, may be indifferent as to the quality of his ink ; knowing what he has written he can read it, be it of the palest grey. But, remembering that it has to be put in type by persons working in smoke-darkened cities, or often by gaslight, he will surely save all unnecessary strain of their eyesight, by employing no liquid that is not decidedly legibly black. Of handwriting'- it is more difficult to speak ; it is a matter, often, of inveterate habit. Its defects are less easily corrected, being connected with the penman’s individuality. Not-a few eminent literary men are illegible penmen. Still, in practice, the inconvenience is less than might at first sight appear. The scrawls thrown off by hard-pressed journalists and editors fall into the hands of persons who are in the habit of deciphering them. Some editors do not pronounce their final judgment on the communications of wellknown and tried contributors until they have perused them in type. It shows, however, the great importance of sending in a first essay in perfectly legible handwriting, even if it be necessary to employ a copyist. In the long run, the poor compositors are the greatest sufferers from illegibility. One great author was their notorious tormentor. What with the blurs, blots, and pothooks in his manuscript, and what with his interminable alterations, corrections, corrections, transpositions, and interpolations in the proof itself, the Paris printers stipulated not to have more than so many hours per day of Balzac.” The return of John Roberts from Australia has given a new impetus to the grand playing on the ‘ ‘ board of green cloth, ,f and a match on Monday night, October 30, at the Crown Hotel, Rupert street, Haymarket, brought together > a crowded company to welcome back the ch axhpion of the elegant and scientific %ame. Roberts undertook to give 400 points in 1000 to S. Bunting, a player of very considerable repute at Manchester, whence Roberts himself originally “hailed.” The Champion looked in the best possible health, and was welcomed with much applause and cordial greeting, as he came into the room with his usual commendable punctuality. The new comer was also cheered, the company including many aristocratic sportsmen and gentlemen, there being also present nearly all the celebiites of billiard-playing in the metropolis to see how the new addition to “ the professionals” would “perform. ” From the commencement of tne game it

was evident that Roberts trip had ho tin the slightest degree unsteadied his hand and and eye, or varied that-remarkable "confidence which his profound knowledge of the game inspires. He - did not make any marvellous break for. him, 114 being, - the largest (with 27 spot strokes), ‘B7 the next, 68, 49 (three of them) 42 34 32, &c. He scored -231 to his opponents 801, and -when the house adjottrhed for the' recess, the aggregate stood—Roberts, 501; Bunting, 602. After resuming, they soon became level, the champion maTHn the next notable change with his 87 break, the total being 753 to 643, and soon after 865 to 713 became recorded. From thence to ■the end it seemed that Roberts played somewhat carelessly, but a running fire of very small chaff was kept up by one or two who it was evident 'had dined— one remark drawing from Roberts a query as to" whether “ he would take 400 or 500 in 1000, for £100,” which silenced the small battery of wit (Eheu !). The game was won by 15 points, but Bunting played with Very bad luck. More than once he looked literally aghast at the great man’s play, especially the losing hazards, through the ball that looks as if it must ine ‘ potted. ” Mr Roberts still holds , his pre-eminence, and there does not seem to be any likelihood of seoing his competitor on equal terms. In one of the courts, lately, there whs a long and learned'discussion as to whether ■the witness should be allowed to answer the question, '“What did Mary say ?” Three judges -gave J#ng and elaborate Opinions in the aifirhirbive, and the question being repeated, the answer was. “Not a word.” . The Sydney Mttil says that “ A specimen of black sand, worked in Wheeler’s Amalgamator, at Mr Hebblewhite’s last week, weighing lO ibs. ; the produce was over 4 “ounces of fiiie gold. This shows the immense value of an article hitherto considered by miners of no value, but which can nOW he profitably worked by the application of proper amalgamating machinery. The Home N<dws says that:—As far ais the friends have learnt, the. property of the late Lord Palmerston has been thus awarded :-r—Broadlands has been left to Lady Palmerston during her life, then to revert to the Hon. W. Cowper, and in case he has no son to the Hon. Evelyn Ashley. The Irish estates have been left to his lordship’s own family, the Sulivans, and the W r elsh slate quarries have been divided between Lady Shaftesbury, Lady Jocelyn, and her second ; son. The Home News remarks, in its literary gossip, that :“ ‘ Our Mutual Friend ’ has been brought to a close, and published in volumes. It is not the happiest of Dickens’s works, nor has it produced that sort of ‘ sensation ’ which used to follow the appearance - of a hew-work - from the hand of the popular novelist. The story is at once complicated and loose, the characters are highly coloured in the way of caricature and extravagance, and the dialogue -abounds in odd and fantastical touches of burlesque fun. But, although it is not equal, as a whole, to the best of Mr Dickens’s former productions, it will vividly remind the reader of them in a hundred characteristic flashes of satire, pathos, and humour.”