rather amusing speeches of a different character in which du
Maurier assails the more obvious forms of snobbery of a class below
those with whom his art was generally concerned may be given:

_Among the Philistines_. _Grigsby_. "Do you _know_ the Joneses,
Mrs. Brown?"

"No, we--er--don't care to know _Business_ people as a rule,
although my husband's in business; but then he's in the _Coffee_
Business and they're all _gentlemen_ in the _Coffee_ Business, you
know!"

_Grigsby_ (who always suits himself to his company). "_Really_ now!
Why, that's more than can be said of the Army, the Navy, the
Church, the Bar, or even the _House of Lords_! I don't _wonder_ at
your being rather _exclusive_!" (_Punch's Almanac_, 1882).

"I see your servants wear cockades now, Miss Shoddson!"

"Yes, Pa's just become a member of the Army and Navy Stores."

When du Maurier confined himself to observing and to recording he never
failed for subjects. But we suppose as a concession to a section of the
public he felt a leaven of mere jokes was demanded from him every year.
The scene of his struggle to invent those "jokes" is one to be veiled.
It is safe to say that it is his distinction to have contributed at once
the best satire and the worst jokes that _Punch_ has ever published. A
black and white artist has told the writer that the _Art_-Editors of
papers look first at the joke. The drawing is accepted or rejected on
the joke. We can only be glad that this was not entirely the editorial
practice on _Punch_ in du Maurier's time. Perhaps the subjoined "joke"
of du Maurier's from _Punch_ is the worst in the world:

"I say, cousin Constance, I've found out why you always call your
Mamma 'Mater.'"

"Why, Guy?"

"Because she's always trying to find a mate for you girls."

[Illustration: Sketch for illustration for "Wives and Daughters" 1865.]

And yet if the drawing accompanying this joke be looked at _first_, it
delights with its charm and distinction. Here then is a psychological
fact; the drawing itself seems to the eye a poorer affair once the poor
joke has been read. Having suffered in this way several times in
following with admiration the pencil of du Maurier through the old
volumes of _Punch_, we at last hit upon the plan of always covering the
joke and enjoying first the picture for its own sake, only uncovering
the legend when this has been thorou