Punch: Punch (57.1869)

22

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[July 17, 1869.

AN OBVIOUSLY ABSURD QUESTION.

" Any Nuts, Ma'am ? "

THE PORTSMOUTH SEVEN.

Right Honourable President op the Board of Trade, hurrah !
Be of good cheer, John. Eraud is not universal amongst the small
shopkeepers of England. Although, according to a Parliamentary
return lately issued, there occurred during the quarter of a year four

LET IT PASS.

" The Irish Church Bill, which last uight passed through Committee in the
House of Lords, will be reported on Friday," &c.

" Reported" again ! More columns of heavy artillery! And why on
this particular Eriday ? To us, in our weariness of glebes and concurrent

hundred and forty-se,ven convictions for using false weights and endowments, it seems as though the Irish Church Bill had been reported
measures in the Metropolitan district; m Lancashire, two hundred and : not oniy on every Ynd&j, but on well-nigh every other day of the week
three; in Staffordshire, two hundred and eight: in Sussex, Wilts, for tae iast six mont,hs ! And now there are disheartening prophets
Westmoreland, Northumberland, and Monmouthshire there were none '■ rea(iy to predict that, if the Commons are firm, and the Lords firmer,
at all; in Berkshire and in Cornwall only two; and, remarkably ^ tue w^ nave to be done all over again in a post-grouse Session,
enough— j or ^ the beginning of 1870, with more speeches, more amendments,

" In Hampshire there were only seven, and all in Portsmouth." | more excited strangers, more leading articles, more public meet-

ings, and more divisions both in Parliament and the parlour. If
We are Seven—seven jolly rogues are we. Septemapud Portesmutham. js tne consequences must be fatal to some of us. Are we never
Who and what were they who constituted those seven local exceptions , to Qave peace again> _ never to De cheerful any more ? Is the
to the honesty oi all Hampshire ? Who they were is what hath not 1 Irjsn church Bill to be like the Jew Bill, punctually passed by the
appeared, but ought to have. What they were may be more or less Commons, as punctually refused by the Lords, for ten years or so ?
accurately inferred from the circumstance that Portsmouth is a Vr punc^ wiSues his country to know that he holds himself ready at
maritime town, with a mixed population. Thence also may likewise be a momeiit's notice to be called to the Upper House, if Bod's Peerage
divined what they were not. The general conjecture will doubtless be, is to De considerably enlarged. Any telegram signed " W. E. Glad-
that they were probably marine-store dealers, and certainly not pure ST0XE» wiu be attended to instantly night or day. (KB.) Mr. P.

Hampshire men.

CHAOS WITHOUT KNOX.

The Marlborough Street battle let others relate,
We '11 deal with but one or two facts,

has made up his mind to decline a Life Peerage.

A Fraternal Act.

In the report of the Banquet at the Trinity House, we read that

Mr D'Eyncourt resides Lt the su tors thev state " ^ the absence of the Duke oe Edinburgh, who is Master of the

iSdf^Sir^'^l Corporation, the Prince oe Waxes graciously consented to preside on
But what, most of all, we can venture to say
Our sense of congruity shocks,

The parties to this most inglorious fray
Came to blows in the absence of Knox !

the occasion." We were, therefore, not surprised to find that His
Roval Highness " wore the uniform of an Elder Brother."

Query if Sufficient ?—The only objection to Concurrent Endow-
ment—Current Opinion. _

The Wtimbledon " Commons."—The Seven who beat the Lords. ' Wimbledon Sweetmeats— Buil's-Eyes.