It is said that it was in Manchester in 1853, there to unveil a statue to Sir Robert Peel, that Gladstone found that he could not only control a large unknown audience but could elicit from them a single response.
He remained punctilious about his style, however, even speaking extempore. It was during a speech in Liverpool that he got into trouble over his use of the word ‘persons’.
He paused & substituted the word to correct himself for using the word ‘gentlemen’ twice in the same sentence; his audience sniggered & applauded.
Gladstone made a gesture of annoyance, signalled to the reporters to take no notice of the interruption & settled for repeating the word ‘gentlemen,’ "preferring a faulty sentence to one that was thus proved to be ambiguous & was open to the suspicion of discourtesy."
The Oxford Man who compiled the Liverpool anecdote presents it as an example of Gladstone’s "impatience of any applause given to him unworthily at the expense of his opponents."
But why might calling someone a person be considered discourteous?
The Oxford English Dictionary provides two possibilities, both of which were current in the 1860s.
- An individual considered to be of low rank, status, or worth
- The human genitals specifically the penis. The term is, (or was) enshrined in English law relating to the crime of indecent exposure. The Vagrancy Act of 1824 says that "Every Person wilfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely exposing his Person in any Street ... or in any place of public Resort, with intent to insult any Female.., shall be deemed a Rogue and Vagabond."
Heavens to Betsy! Do the feminists know? Well yes, I expect they do. That’s why the person in charge of a meeting must be referred to as if they were an article of furniture.
Link
Vagrancy Act 1824 (c.83) - Statute Law Database
Related posts
A terminological debate
It really ought to be perdaughter
An –ity bit of difference
