Punch (37.1859)

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [September 3, 1859.

ANOTHER BANQUET AND ANOTHER TESTIMONIAL.

mongst the higher cir-
cles of. the theatrical
world, it is in contem-
plation to get up a Ban-
quet and Testimonial to
Richardson's Ghost. It
is singular, that though
nearly the oldest mem-
ber of the dramatic pro-
fession, his valuable
services should have
been overlooked so long.
It is expected that this
exciting occasion will
have the happy effect
of bringing together all
classes of the Thespian
community under the
same convivial shroud,
and that everything like
jealousy will be buried
in the “tomb of all the
Capulets,” or any other
cemetery that may be
equally accessible and
open, in order to do
justice to their honoured
guest; who, even though
his name be a mystery, greater even than the authorship of Junius, is none the less respected
for that merely nominal defect. Supposing he be destitute of any vernacular identification,
and has throughout the long apparition of his blue-fiery life been studiously ignored by the
envious playbills, still is it not an historical fact, which must silence at once the deafening
tongue of detraction, that Richardson's Ghost has made himself a fame such as the biggest
six-inch-lettered vermilion or cerulean names that adorn our polychromatic posting stations
might reasonably envy. A great number of celebrities have promised to attend, and amongst
others we may confidently expect to see the Spotted Boy, the Pig-faced Lady, and two or

three of our most popular Giants and Dwarfs,
who have been endeavouring to rise above each
other in their zeal to gender homage to the distin-
guished object of their spectral admiration.

The Dinner will take place in the Shades, and
the toast of the evening, “ Richardson's Ghost,
may his shadow never be less! ” will be pro-
posed by no less a genius than the “ Ghost in
the Corsican Brothers," . who has pledged his
ghostly word to attend in propria persona, and
deliver his speech, as he rises through his well-
known slide with the usual effective accompani-
ment of the shivery music. This act of liberality
is the strongest proof of the very high esteem in
which Richardson's Ghost (for a long succession
ol years the most rising actor the stage has ever
had) is held by his talented confreres.

“ PONTIFICAL TITLES.”

Tiie Pontiff who sanctioned the massacre of
Perugia can hardly hope to retain the name of
“Pius,” without question. There is only one
way in which the Pontifical name of Mastai
Peretti can be read, after such horrors have
been perpetrated under his authority (and that
is, by way of question and answer) thus—Rio?
No, no.

In order to couple the memory of the murders
of Perugia and the Papal connection with St.
Peter, we would suggest a change of the Pope’s
title, from Pius the Ninth to “ Pietro
Perugino the Second.”

Political Economy.—A thing much talked
about, but never practised — Viscount William.

LATHER ANTIC THE LAW.

MARRIAGE WITHOUT A MOTHER-IN-LAW!

In the City Sheriffs’ Court, the other day, before Mr. Kerr—
according to iaw report:—

“ In a case which occurred, Mb. Beakd applied for his costs.

“ His Honour : You will have your costs, but I tell you that on and from the 1st
October next, a great many alterations will be made, and I intend to be very strict.
Only a day or two ago I allowed a counsel £1 3s. Gd., who told me that he did not
consider his case of sufficient importance to appear in costume, but I shall require
not only counsel, but also solicitors to robe, or I shall not allow fees.”

The learned counsel’s remark that “he did not consider his case of
sufficient importance to appear in costume” suggests a scheme of new
and improved arrangements respecting legal uniform. When the gen-
tleman of the long robe assigned the unimportance of his case as a
reason for not putting his long robe on, he meant, of course, to imply,
that a certain amount of importance attached to a case did require that
it should be conducted by an advocate attired in that vestment. He
was willing to wear his robe in a matter involving a considerable fee,
but could not do it at £1 3s. 6d. It would have been more satisfac-
tory if he had stated the figure at which lie would have thought appear-
i ance in professional costume necessary; but suppose a given amount.
The question will then arise whether, if that amount demands robing,
higher amounts ought not to demand more robing, so that the pleader
would be robed with a profusion proportionate to the importance of
his case ? This principle might not only be adopted and acted upon in
! Sheriff’s Courts and County Courts, but also in Nisi Prius, where
| something like it is in operation already; for there the barristers all
I wear wigs, or, if not, they become invisible: the judge cannot see
them, and will not hear them. The standard of the importance of cases
might be either pecuniary or moral, but in proportion either to the
money, or to the moment of the question involved, might be the fulness
and complexity of the costume. The more serious the case, in either
point of view, the more comical the wig and gowm might be rendered,
the former by additional rows of curls, and lengthened pigtails, ana
the latter by fringes, embroidery of various colours, and other equally,
or more, ridiculous decorations. Characteristic costumes might be
worn in special cases; for example, in breach of promise actions,
which are usually laughable, and wherein the counsel might figure in
j the drollest dresses, which would be suitable to the suit. The general
I rule, howmver, should be that of absurdity of attire in proportion to
gravity of question, as aforesaid. Usage is a great point in law; the
i judge in the Crown Court at Assizes is a much more elaborate Guy
than his learned brother on the Civil side ; and when he proceeds to
pass sentence of death, he enacts the solemn absurdity of cocking a
thing bke a pen-wiper on the top of his wig.

A Good many good arguments have from time to time been urged
in favour of a man’s marrying his deceased’s wife’s sister: but. there
is one that Mr. Punch may claim the credit of suggesting, which, like
all he ever does, is supereminently powerful and transcendant to all
else. The clinching proof of the advantage of marrying a wife’s sister
is, that a man thereby may have a second wife without his having a
second mother-in-law. The Mamma of his first wife no doubt would
still continue to reside upon his premises, but he would probably have
grown somewhat reconciled and used to her; and her presence wrnuld be
far less irksome to put up with than that of a new mother-in-law, wdiose
temper would be strange to him, and whose tantrums he might find
it plaguy troublesome to cure. Besides, it possibly might chance
(thouAi the contingency is certainly remote from being prooable) that
his first wife’s mother might have beaten a retreat, and (eft him
monarch of all that he surveyed in his own house; in the which case
his felicity wrould be without alloy, and even Mr. Punch might envy
him his bliss. *

The only fear would be that, were such unions to be legalised, selfish
husbands might be tempted to make away with their first wives, for
the sake of the delight of marrying again, without having to maintain
another mother-in-law through doing so. Marriage and no mother-in-
law seems really such a luxury, that few men could deny themselves
the pleasure of obtaining it.

“ The mothers who lore us" has been long a standing toast, and all
who sit in Parliament no doubt wrnuld gladly drink it. But were “ The
mothers-in-law who ‘ lore ’ us ” proposed as the next sentiment, it is
possible that certain of our M.P.’s might not relish it. Had the argu-
ment which Mr. Punch has herein been adducing been used when the
Deceased Wife’s Sister’s Marriage Bill was brought before the House,
it is doubtful if that measure would not have been carried, and
marriage without a mother-in-law have been legally allowed to us.

* Note. “ How can you wiite such stuff, Sir ! ’’—Judy.

Important to Ladies.

Under the head of “Deaths,” the ages of the deceased are generally
stated by our contemporaries. The “Births,” of course, speak for
themselves, but the “Marriages” are wholly silent on that particular,
the mention of which would, in reference to them, be generally read
with much more interest than any that is excited by the revelations
of the obituary.