Punch (35.1858)

Jul? 24, 1858.]

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

31

" NON KEDOLET SED OLET, NEC
KEDOLERE SOLET."

Both in Parliament and out of it a good deal
has been said of the Conservancy of the Thames
Unsavoury as it may be, the subject has been
lately in everybody's mouth. But although
public speakers, not less indeed than private
ones, have done their utmost seemingly to ex-
haust the fertile topic, a remark still remains
which (so far as we 're aware) has not as yet
been made on it. In fact, unless the truth be
sacrificed, the observation we allude to cannot
possibly be uttered. It is as clear as its own
mud that, while the Biver-sewer Thames is suf-
fered, as it now is, to continue in bad odour,
its conservancy at any rate can never truthfully
be spoken of as a conserve of roses.

Address to General Peel.

"Yah!" Weedon hoots,
" Peel ! do your duty!"

Who sold the boots ?
Who sacked the booty ?

a nice new feast for the calendar.

These is one feast that nobody would grudge
the Corporation of London, if only true grounds
for its observance could be established—the
Purification of the Thames.

CRINOLINE FOR EVER—NO BATHING-MACHINE REQUIRED. , " Very ^es '\~ ?he jw0 un.ha^py

failures that have followed the attempt to lay

a hint for the sea-side. down the Atlantic Cable.

SIR POT AND SIR KETTLE.

(Or, Bath versus Garter.)

Sir Pot, the new Knight of the Garter,

On Sir Kettle, the Knight of the Bath,
(One a Turk was, the other a Tartar,)

Once emptied his vials of wrath.
If Sir Kettle with interest retorted,

Is a fact that the reader must settle,
By perusing the fray here reported,

Between these renown'd men of metal.

Quoth Sir Pot : "For your late K.C.B.s,

The Bath's an appropriate order;
For washing's a process agrees

With such knights as that wretch Jung Bahaweer.
Though to wash such a blackamoor white,

If even your Bath, Sir, he equal,
Is a problem (you '11 own I am right)

Which has yet to be solved by the sequel."

Quoth Sir Kettle : " I own it was rash,

To blow out the brains of his cousins ;
To settle th' avuncular hash,

And shoot down his rivals by dozens ;
But if you cast up my Bahawder,

Why on your own list should be found
Abdul Medjid,—to drop all soft sawder—

That servant of heathen Mahound ? "

Not even your chancellor bland,

Sam Oxon of skill saponaceous,
Can wash off the stain from his hand,

Or to truth twist his dealings mendacious."

So Sir Pot's and Sir Kettle's black lips

Each the other's high order kept roasting:
Sir Pot flinging in the great "Phipps,"

And Sir Kettle with " Hertford " riposting.
" Jamie Simpson ! " cried Pot. " prince of muffs! "

" With Sal'sbury ! " cried Kettle ; "you cappfd are.''
But here Kettle and Pot got to cuffs,

And this made an end of the chapter.

LORD CAMPBELL IN ERROR.

The Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench is a judge
whose remarks are usually judicious. At the late Norfolk Assizes,
however, the noble and learned lord made an observation, an obiter
dictum, not perhaps characterized by his usual shrewdness. George
Bates, aged 34, was indicted for stealing a certain thing, the property
of George Newens, under-bailiff to Baron Bothschild. During a
fire which happened at Newens's house, Bates had saved the thing in
question, but refused to surrender it unless he were paid Is. for his
services. He was acquitted of the charge of larceny; whereupon the
following opinion was pronounced by—

"Lord Campbell. I am sure that if Baron Rothschild had been present, ne
would willingly have paid the sum."

Quoth Sir Pot : " But just look at your host

Of Cardigans, Lucans, and Aireys,
Earned, betwixt you and me and the Post,

Eor nought but their blund'ring vagaries.
I '11 fling you Dundas in therewith;

The whole four will make up a poor Hector ;
And what do you say to A. Smith,

Ex-medical Army director ? "

Quoth Sir Kettle : "Don't cast up to me!
Just look at your own order's blazon,

Now the thing which had been saved from the fire, and for the
rescue of which Is. was demanded, was—what do you suppose ? A
ham. Does Lord Campbell think, on consideration, that Baron
Rothschild could possibly have paid salvage for a ham ? We cannot
conceive that the honourable Member for London would have con-
sented to make any such payment for any such purpose, when we con-
sider how long a conscientious scruple has kept him from taking his
seat in Parliament, by deterring him from making a merely formal
profession, which many other honourable gentlemen do not hesitate to
make without meaning it. Baron Bothschild, if in personal danger,
might be anxious to save his own bacon ; but he can have no ham to
Where a Louis Napoleon we see, [ save, and to expect that he would pay for the preservation of his

Hard to say if more bloody or brazen. ! bailiff's would be unreasonable.