MAGGUFFIN AND THE GENTEEL LARRIKINS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 100, 16 August 1876, Page 2

MAGGUFFIN AND THE GENTEEL LARRIKINS.

To TIIK Kl'lToi: OV TKK KVRNTXCr M.Un.

fijrt. l oi'uve a small space in your columns to rei'lv to tlic outburst of dramatic wrath which lias been showered upon my devoted head lor daring to "'show up" a few of-the " bloods" of this town. With your permission sir, I. will take the correspondence"as it appears in your issue, and deal with the letters seriatim. The first is a unique specimen, written by one who assumes to be the custodian of the honor of the Club, on whose behalf lie writes in a style partaking largely of the Old Bailey, with a no small modicum of Billingsgate. It is a pity that the honor of the Club should have been placed in the hands of so sorry a defender, for an impartial reader could form but a poor opinion of it as a body, if " One of the Slandered " is to be taken as its accredited mouthpiece. IVoin the refined and elegant diction, and indeed the whole style of his composition, T can easily understand that -'Chic of the Slandered " was quite oblivious of offending against good breeding, and that his ideas as to what constitutes "eiitlemanly behaviour are as vague and misty as ins knowledge of the meaning of the word veracity. " Fools rush in where am r cls fear to tread," and T should certainly imagine the majority of the Club on reading his inane effusion will regret the choice of ! their knight errant, and exclaim, "Save me from my friends.'" Can this injured innocence deny that Miss De Vere, with indignant looks and heightened color, cried "Shame" at the unseemly '.nterrivption to which she was subjected V With all respect to your courteous and credible correspondent, I must assert that the facts contained in my letter arc substantially, wholly and literally correct. "With an insolence only paralleled by his ignorance, this fledgling undercook to read you, sir. a homily on journalistic etiquette, a matter of which he knows just as much as a cat does of conic sections, and I assumes to himself the right to do battle for himself, Everett and Co. I have no doubt he writhes under the castigation lie has deservedly received, and I trust the lesson will not be iost on him. So much for JVb. 1. Mr. Everett writes to deny that any disturbance took place on the night in question. i Now. a " fellow-feeling makes us wondrous .khuV' ami the fact that a lady connected in someway with the Troupe was a sharer in the ill-timed hilarity, may account for that "entleman joining issue with the disturbers. If, as Mr. Everett asserts, "there were no disturbance, how comes it that one of the I audience had indignantly written to the 7V/hm, previous to' niy letter appearing? I'erhaps Mr. Everett or his legal adviser and amanuensis will kindly explain away those somewhat connecting ..fad* So much for No. 2. : ' '■' "A Member of the Club'" makes an appeal nd miwrirordifim, and while not attempting to denvthe allegations of unruly conduct, takes exception to the Club in f/lobo being made answerable for the misdeeds of a few black sheep. There is much justice in this, and had I done what your last correspondent decries, I would certainly be open to grave censure. But if " A Member " had read my

letter in a calmer spirit, he would have found that I did no such thing. • The statement that the letter was written in revenge and with intent to injure the Club I treat with the contempt it deserves, being as false as it is absurd. I never had the pleasure of seeing the club perform, and not a single individual member was known to me even by sight. Seeing a number of gentlemen occupying the front row complained of, all of whom appearing to be on the most friendly footing, I made inquiries, and was informed they were members of the Dramatic Club. Now, a reference to my letter will | prove that the charge was laid against "certain members," and not against the Club as a body. Further, your correspondent, whether wittingly or not, I leave to .his own sense of honor, lias misconstrued my meaning with regard to the "questionable patronage." He should see the context will bear out no such construction as to make it refer to the Club, but the "patronage of the gentlemen (?) " alluded to. In reply to what I suppose is intended for a witticism, I may inform "A Member" that "Magguffin" has never appeared in public, and therefore is unable to say whether he would on such an occasion prove a draw, but he has never been guilty of conduct as one of an audience which rendered it advisable that he should icithdraw. So much for No. 3. Before concluding, I may be allowed to say that for the Club I entertain the highest respect—as Ido for all such kindred bodies —and it has no sincerer well-wisher for its prosperity than myself. I have explained how I came to mention the Club in this unpleasant affair, and I repudiate" in just as strong terms, that I have been ■"•prbinpted by animus, or seek to injure it, as I reiterate my statements with regard to some of its members.—l am, &c, Maggtjffik. [This must close this correspondence.— Ed. KM.] '