DOI issue:
January to June, 1844
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16519#0228
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
231
BRITISH AND FOREIGN DESTITUTE.
FIVE MINUTES WITH JONES.
We owe a very serious apology to Mr. George Jones, the gentle-
man (uncle to the Boy Jones) who lectures at this Institution—or
rather, Destitution. We owe him, we repeat, an apology for having
mislaid his letter, which, otherwise, we should have printed ere this.
We now lay it before the reader, having—regardless of expense—
caused the engraved autograph of Jones to be subjoined to the
missive :—
British and Foreign Institute,
Sir, 9th May, 1844.
If the anonymous scribbler who disgraces your paper by his
disgusting attacks upon this excellent Institution will throw off the mask,
I am ready to meet him in the arena of free discussion ; but until then 1
shall treat his paltry effusions with the contempt they merit. The taking
advantage of a mere similitude of names to connect me with a base-born
intruder who has caused her beloved Majesty so much alarm, is a most
ungenerous attempt to draw down public odium on one whose loyalty is
his greatest boast. I deny in the strongest manner the affinitive relation-
ship you have attempted to fasten on me ; and 1 trust I am too well known
to be very much injured by the calumny. The gratifying manner in
which I have been honoured by their Majesties the Kings of the French
and of Prussia, (to the latter of whom my work on Ancient America is
dedicated) and by many distinguished personages both in Great Britain
and on the Continent, is no doubt calculated to excite the envy and male-
volence of little minds; but I beg to assure you, sir, that I am armour-
proof against such missiles as you or your myrmidons can direct against,
Your obedient,
To Mr. Punch,
&c. &c. &c.
A few words will explain to Mr. Jones, why Punch condescended
to notice him at all. Jones was put forth by Mr. Buckingham as
one of the orators and lecturers at the British and Foreign ; and as,
in compliance with the prayers of many members, Punch resolved
to test every commodity offered by the Resident Director to his
subscribers, the pretensions of Jones came very fairly under consi-
deration. Punch criticised Jones as he would have criticised a piece
of furniture or a piece of cookery of the Institute—a joint-stool, or a
tete de veau au nature!.
Let us proceed to calmly consider the epistle of Jones. He first
says, he shall treat us with contempt ; and then writes a long
letter to prove his resolution. This reminds us of the lady who, much
persecuted by the addresses of a foolish lover, at last married him, as
she said, to get rid of him.
Next, as to Mr. Jones's " affinitive relationship " to the Boy Jones.
He calls that enterprising and inquiring youth " base-born," as
though by such contempt —hardly decorous in an American—our
lecturer would throw off consanguinity. We have, however, heard
on what we thought excellent authority, that the ancestors of Mr.
Jones—very worthy, honest people—emigrated from Stoke Pogis to
America in the time of Charles the Second ; and that there they
flourished, paying their way, like worthy folk : that, some five-and-
twenty years ago, a brother of Mr. George Jones, a respectable man
and very clever cobbler, came to England, where he married and settled
somewhere in Westminster. Of this marriage the Boy Jones was
the fruit, and consequently the nephew of Mr. George Jones. This
is the account that has reached us ; and when we reflect on the intel-
ligence and curious spirit developed by the Boy Jones, to the "so
much alarm of her beloved Majesty," we confess we cannot but
recognise in such powers a kindred genius to the high quality that
supported Mr. George Jones through his Ancient America. We
cannot but acknowledge a spiritual relationship between the Boy
Jones in the royal chimney, seeking information in the teeth of all
difficulties, and the historian Jones feeling his dim way, dark lantern
in hand, through the shadows of ancient Columbia. The similitude
must strike every one.
And now, for Mr. Jones's loyalty towards her beloved Majesty.
lie owes the Queen no loyalty ; he is an American ; and as such, to
attempt to pay more than he owes, we consider to be a very cruel
sarcasm on Pennsylvania. England has nothing to do with Mr.
Jones ; the lion and unicorn reject his loyalty, his "greatest boast."
No ; he owes that treasure to his own flag. Even as an actor, he
doubtless as well deserves the "Stars" of the American banner, as
his book is worthy of the " Stripes."
We now come to the envy that has stirred the gall of Punch—the
"envy of little minds." Jones has been smiled upon by Louis
Philippe, and has dedicated his Ancient America to the King of
Prussia. However, Jones is "armour proof." Achilles was
dipped in Styx ; Jones—there is evidence of the fact—was, at his
birth, soused in molten brass.
Mr. Jones, though an historian,has a fine eye to the vulgar profits
of life. The reader will observe how adroitly Jones brings in his
book of Ancient America, and thereby, we have no doubt, makes us
liable to the stamp-office for an advertisement, even though, like a
tombstone, it does but advertise the dead.
We have, for the present, done with Mr. Jones. We repeat, we
should not have noticed him had he not been put forward by Mr.
Buckingham as one of the guides and instructors of the members
of the Institute. Alter perusing Mr. Jones's letter to Punch, and
duly considering its elegant style and lofty spirit, our readers may
imagine the fitness of Mr. Jones to compose and deliver an " Oration
on the Life and Genius of Shakspeare"—may have some tolerable
idea of the philosophy and beauty of his Ancient America, of which
jocose work we may possibly speak further at a future season. We
may, however, ask in conclusion, how could Mr. Buckingham suffer
Jones to write such a letter?
PUNCH'S NEW ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.
As the Times very properly observed in its leader of the 25th Ult.,
"it is really temptingPunch to keep on the statute-book such a law as
that which has resulted in the exposure of such a variety of royal
and noble nonsense as has been lately obtruded on the world by the
publication of the late Duke of Sussex's love-letters." The arith-
metical question naturally occurs to us, if the Duke of Sussex was,
as all admitted him to be, the most enlightened of the sons of George
the Third, how much enlightenment remained for the rest of the
family !
To prevent similar rubbish being shot—through the medium of the
Privy Council—into the public eye, we have drawn up the following
i&eto Ifvocal Jttatnacje ftct.
ffi231)ma9, by an Act of Folly passed in the reign of George III.,
and not to be surpassed in the reign of anybody, it was enacted, that
certain royal personages could not marry without the consent of the
Sovereign :
EnD 512Ef)ma8--did marry, and though in the eye of the
law he did wrong, he also did write sundry letters ; to wit, certain
rubbish and rigmarole, trash and twaddle, gammon and spinach,
dated the-of-, in the year-:
&tlti 3123t)crras the said--— did, on the said day of the said
year, write other rubbish besides the said rubbish, and certain other
rigmarole besides the said rigmarole, and divers other bits of trash
and twaddle besides the said trash and twaddle, as well as certain
other divers and numerous bits of gammon as well as spinach, in
addition to the other gammon and spinach hereinbefore recited as
aforesaid :
ailf! 9i(BJ)mas it is expedient to prevent a recurrence of such an
exposure as the said exposure hereinbefore alluded to, and which is
part and parcel of a case reported in all the papers of the day—to
wit, the morning journals, published daily and every day, periodically
and at stated periods, in the cities of London and Westminster, or
in the precincts of the Savoy :
Br it Itjerrfore ©iiartett, by and with, &c, and under the advice,
&c, That a member of the Royal family shall be at liberty to marry
whom or how or when, wheie and anywhere, he or she likes or
pleases.
$robujet> altoags, and Be it further lEnarteti, That a marriage in
Great Britain be subjected to all the laws and provisions by which
Great Britain is bound ; and that it shall not be lawful to evade this
statute by a marriage in Little Britain.
231
BRITISH AND FOREIGN DESTITUTE.
FIVE MINUTES WITH JONES.
We owe a very serious apology to Mr. George Jones, the gentle-
man (uncle to the Boy Jones) who lectures at this Institution—or
rather, Destitution. We owe him, we repeat, an apology for having
mislaid his letter, which, otherwise, we should have printed ere this.
We now lay it before the reader, having—regardless of expense—
caused the engraved autograph of Jones to be subjoined to the
missive :—
British and Foreign Institute,
Sir, 9th May, 1844.
If the anonymous scribbler who disgraces your paper by his
disgusting attacks upon this excellent Institution will throw off the mask,
I am ready to meet him in the arena of free discussion ; but until then 1
shall treat his paltry effusions with the contempt they merit. The taking
advantage of a mere similitude of names to connect me with a base-born
intruder who has caused her beloved Majesty so much alarm, is a most
ungenerous attempt to draw down public odium on one whose loyalty is
his greatest boast. I deny in the strongest manner the affinitive relation-
ship you have attempted to fasten on me ; and 1 trust I am too well known
to be very much injured by the calumny. The gratifying manner in
which I have been honoured by their Majesties the Kings of the French
and of Prussia, (to the latter of whom my work on Ancient America is
dedicated) and by many distinguished personages both in Great Britain
and on the Continent, is no doubt calculated to excite the envy and male-
volence of little minds; but I beg to assure you, sir, that I am armour-
proof against such missiles as you or your myrmidons can direct against,
Your obedient,
To Mr. Punch,
&c. &c. &c.
A few words will explain to Mr. Jones, why Punch condescended
to notice him at all. Jones was put forth by Mr. Buckingham as
one of the orators and lecturers at the British and Foreign ; and as,
in compliance with the prayers of many members, Punch resolved
to test every commodity offered by the Resident Director to his
subscribers, the pretensions of Jones came very fairly under consi-
deration. Punch criticised Jones as he would have criticised a piece
of furniture or a piece of cookery of the Institute—a joint-stool, or a
tete de veau au nature!.
Let us proceed to calmly consider the epistle of Jones. He first
says, he shall treat us with contempt ; and then writes a long
letter to prove his resolution. This reminds us of the lady who, much
persecuted by the addresses of a foolish lover, at last married him, as
she said, to get rid of him.
Next, as to Mr. Jones's " affinitive relationship " to the Boy Jones.
He calls that enterprising and inquiring youth " base-born," as
though by such contempt —hardly decorous in an American—our
lecturer would throw off consanguinity. We have, however, heard
on what we thought excellent authority, that the ancestors of Mr.
Jones—very worthy, honest people—emigrated from Stoke Pogis to
America in the time of Charles the Second ; and that there they
flourished, paying their way, like worthy folk : that, some five-and-
twenty years ago, a brother of Mr. George Jones, a respectable man
and very clever cobbler, came to England, where he married and settled
somewhere in Westminster. Of this marriage the Boy Jones was
the fruit, and consequently the nephew of Mr. George Jones. This
is the account that has reached us ; and when we reflect on the intel-
ligence and curious spirit developed by the Boy Jones, to the "so
much alarm of her beloved Majesty," we confess we cannot but
recognise in such powers a kindred genius to the high quality that
supported Mr. George Jones through his Ancient America. We
cannot but acknowledge a spiritual relationship between the Boy
Jones in the royal chimney, seeking information in the teeth of all
difficulties, and the historian Jones feeling his dim way, dark lantern
in hand, through the shadows of ancient Columbia. The similitude
must strike every one.
And now, for Mr. Jones's loyalty towards her beloved Majesty.
lie owes the Queen no loyalty ; he is an American ; and as such, to
attempt to pay more than he owes, we consider to be a very cruel
sarcasm on Pennsylvania. England has nothing to do with Mr.
Jones ; the lion and unicorn reject his loyalty, his "greatest boast."
No ; he owes that treasure to his own flag. Even as an actor, he
doubtless as well deserves the "Stars" of the American banner, as
his book is worthy of the " Stripes."
We now come to the envy that has stirred the gall of Punch—the
"envy of little minds." Jones has been smiled upon by Louis
Philippe, and has dedicated his Ancient America to the King of
Prussia. However, Jones is "armour proof." Achilles was
dipped in Styx ; Jones—there is evidence of the fact—was, at his
birth, soused in molten brass.
Mr. Jones, though an historian,has a fine eye to the vulgar profits
of life. The reader will observe how adroitly Jones brings in his
book of Ancient America, and thereby, we have no doubt, makes us
liable to the stamp-office for an advertisement, even though, like a
tombstone, it does but advertise the dead.
We have, for the present, done with Mr. Jones. We repeat, we
should not have noticed him had he not been put forward by Mr.
Buckingham as one of the guides and instructors of the members
of the Institute. Alter perusing Mr. Jones's letter to Punch, and
duly considering its elegant style and lofty spirit, our readers may
imagine the fitness of Mr. Jones to compose and deliver an " Oration
on the Life and Genius of Shakspeare"—may have some tolerable
idea of the philosophy and beauty of his Ancient America, of which
jocose work we may possibly speak further at a future season. We
may, however, ask in conclusion, how could Mr. Buckingham suffer
Jones to write such a letter?
PUNCH'S NEW ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT.
As the Times very properly observed in its leader of the 25th Ult.,
"it is really temptingPunch to keep on the statute-book such a law as
that which has resulted in the exposure of such a variety of royal
and noble nonsense as has been lately obtruded on the world by the
publication of the late Duke of Sussex's love-letters." The arith-
metical question naturally occurs to us, if the Duke of Sussex was,
as all admitted him to be, the most enlightened of the sons of George
the Third, how much enlightenment remained for the rest of the
family !
To prevent similar rubbish being shot—through the medium of the
Privy Council—into the public eye, we have drawn up the following
i&eto Ifvocal Jttatnacje ftct.
ffi231)ma9, by an Act of Folly passed in the reign of George III.,
and not to be surpassed in the reign of anybody, it was enacted, that
certain royal personages could not marry without the consent of the
Sovereign :
EnD 512Ef)ma8--did marry, and though in the eye of the
law he did wrong, he also did write sundry letters ; to wit, certain
rubbish and rigmarole, trash and twaddle, gammon and spinach,
dated the-of-, in the year-:
&tlti 3123t)crras the said--— did, on the said day of the said
year, write other rubbish besides the said rubbish, and certain other
rigmarole besides the said rigmarole, and divers other bits of trash
and twaddle besides the said trash and twaddle, as well as certain
other divers and numerous bits of gammon as well as spinach, in
addition to the other gammon and spinach hereinbefore recited as
aforesaid :
ailf! 9i(BJ)mas it is expedient to prevent a recurrence of such an
exposure as the said exposure hereinbefore alluded to, and which is
part and parcel of a case reported in all the papers of the day—to
wit, the morning journals, published daily and every day, periodically
and at stated periods, in the cities of London and Westminster, or
in the precincts of the Savoy :
Br it Itjerrfore ©iiartett, by and with, &c, and under the advice,
&c, That a member of the Royal family shall be at liberty to marry
whom or how or when, wheie and anywhere, he or she likes or
pleases.
$robujet> altoags, and Be it further lEnarteti, That a marriage in
Great Britain be subjected to all the laws and provisions by which
Great Britain is bound ; and that it shall not be lawful to evade this
statute by a marriage in Little Britain.