Punch (7.1844)

26

PUNCH. OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

PUNCH'S FINE ART EXHIBITION.

ew persons will deny that the subjects of this Exhi-
bition, of which we give unrivalled copies to
the British public this day, are disgraceful
in every point of view : that they are mean
in execution : that they are vulgar in idea :
that they are questionable in morality :
and, in a word, unworthy of consideration.

We therefore propose to examine them
calmly, carefully, and in an cesthetical point
of view. As we have no party prejudices,
we are happy to say that we despise them
all equally; and have spared no expense to
lay them before a generous and enlightened
public, for whose opinions we do not care
one straw.

Why Mr. Spoker should have repre-
sented our Gracious Queen in the character
of " Britannia patronizing the Fine
Arts," we are at a loss to conceive. It is
neither correct in point of history, nor complimentary to our Gracious
Monarch, who does not patronize the British Fine Arts at all, liking,
and with reason, French, German, and Italian artists, much better.

Nor is General Tom Thumb a Briton. He was, like General
Washington, born in the town of Kentucky, in the county of
Pennsylvania, U. S., and, therefore, is an American. Hence it is
absurd to typify him as an exemplification of the Fine Arts.

That the Artists of Great Britain are among the most devoted of
Her Majesty's subjects, is proved from the fact that they furnish the
Queen with pictures at about a fifth part of the price which common
publishers will give for them. So that it is lucky for them that the
Sovereign does not patronize the Fine Arts more. This is no doubt
the royal reason, and is incontrovertible : only vulgar persons will,
henceforth, raise any objection to Her Majesty's apparent coldness
towards the Arts.

The other large piece by Stiller is equally reprehensible—
•* Field Marshal his Royal Highness Prince Albert attiring Mars
for battle." Mars was the God of war—he is so no longer. He is
represented with the flower-pot-Albert hat which he never wore :
and which is about as fit for a God of war as a gauze turban with a
bird of paradise or a tulip to ornament it.

His Royal Highness the Prince Field Marshal never put this hat on
Mars — on the contrary, he withdrew it. It is, therefore, disrespect-
ful to the Prince, as it is disgraceful to the God of war.

Mars is represented with a Blucher lying beside him. Ought he
not in common justice and good feeling to have had a Wellington on
the other foot ?

No. 9C5. "Joseph Hume buttoning his caliga, or highlow." Of
this statue we make the complaint that has been made relative to the
effigies of his Grace the Duke of Wellingtgn, his late most sacred
Majesty George IV., &c.—viz., a total, shameful, wicked, mean,
perverse, base inaccuracy of costume. How is Joseph represented ?
by a wicked perversion of fact—in pantaloons—and nothing but pan-
taloons. Is he not a Scotchman—and do Scotchmen wear panta-
loons ?—quite the contrary. There is not a snuff establishment in the
metropolis but can furnish a proud denial to the question. So much
for the author of Hume ; —pass we now to

1385. "B. DTsraeli, Esquire, (M.P.), strangling the Whig and
Tory serpents." This is a fine idea—and the snakes we may say are
magnificently handled. Whether, however, the Tories are snakes, or
the Whigs resemble those exceedingly venomous creatures—we for
our parts decline to state. To call a gent, a snake, is to our thinking,
to say that he is no better than a reptile : and is it fair to treat the
two great parties in England in this humiliating manner ?

The portrait of the celebrated author of " Coningsmark," &c, is
good, but not in the least like him. In this the artist has shown his
tact and skill.

1040'5. "Mercury teaching Sir James Graham the Use of
Lett-rs." Absurd—contrary to truth. It was Cadmus who invented
letters by the aid of the God of Quicksilver. Sir James Graha.m
only broke them open when written.

100000. " John Bull extracting the Income-Tax from his Foot."
Ha! ha ! ha! We wish he may procure it, but not all the Levis
or Eisenbergs in the world can remove that obstruction from him.

As for " Sibthorp eating Thistles" (395),and " Lord Brough>m
in the character of a Peri mourning his being kicked out or
Paradise" (No. 49C7), these are fease-reliefs indeed ;—if Colonel S.
likes thistles (and we have not heard whether he does or no, and
if he does, there are some very useful animals who like them, too),
why should he not eat them ? and why be held up to public ridicule
for a harmless, though singular, taste ? And in regard of Lord
Brougham being turned out of the Treasury—we ask one thing
—Could his Lordship help it ? and is it not perfectly natural that
he would like to get back again ? Would not Russell and Palmer-
ston like to go back, too ? and, as in the case of John Bull.
(100000), we say, we heartily wish they may get it.

THE « EIGHT POUND " GOVERNESS.

In a recent number, it may be remembered, we extracted an advertise-
ment for " A Governess of Decided Piety," at eight pounds per annum.
The letters were to be addressed to " Mr. Bruce, Stationer, Trump-street,
King-street, Cheapside,"—the unsuspecting Mr. Bruce never having seen
the advertisement which was to shed its mild rays on the Evangelical
Magazine. Hence, many persons have—in their contempt cf "G. I."
the advertiser—confounded him in some way with the worthy Mr. Bruce,
who, had he seen the advertisement, would, he assures us, ha.\ e never lent
his name and house to so shabby a transaction. We have also been
infemed that " G. I."—(by the way, is " G. I." either cf the dozen







JbW 1

Wandering Jews ?)—has obtained a victim, a governess ; that, in liis own
words, " lie is nicely suited." Poor doomed thing !

PUNCH'S (exclusive) LAW REPORT.

The important question, which of the Barons should try the case
of Running Rein, was discussed in their lordships' private room-
Instead of the sittings in banco, their Lordships held their

SITTINGS IN ELBOW-CHAIRS BEFORE MAHOGANY.
Mr. Baron Alderson opened the proceedings by remarking that
there would be some fun for the judge who tried the case of Run-
ning Rein. And he thought it would not be fair for the chief to
exercise his privilege, and preside as he would in strictness have
the right to do.

Mr. Baron Rolfe said the question was really one of merits, and
the judge in whose peculiar line the matter seemed to be, ought, he
(Mr. Baron Rolfe) thought, to be the one to try it.

The Chief Baron said he would be glad to leave the affair in the
hands of the puisnes.

Mr. Baron Gurney said the only point to decide was whether
the trial was likely to be comic or serious. If comic, he thought the
broad humour of his brother Alderson would meet the merits, but
if serious, he thought that the melodramatic and impressive Baron on
his left (he meant Mr. Baron Parke), would be the judge to whose
hands the matter ought to be committed.

Mr. Baron Parke observed that if he were selected to try the
case, he should adopt the solemn tone of the Admiral in Black-Eyed
Susan, whose luminous judgment on William seemed to be a model of
British jurisprudence.

After some further consultation, it was agreed that their Lordships
should toss up, or, in other words, undergo the ancient ordeal of trial
by copper. This plan, however, presented difficulties, and it was
then proposed to settle the question in the shape of a game at odd
man, but this left it still unsatisfactory, for two of the very oddest
men are Barons of the Exchequer.

It was ultimately nettled that Baron Aldersok should try thfc
case that had been the subject of so much judicial competition.