DOI Heft:
September 24, 1859
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16864#0134
123
September 24, 1859. ] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,
0Ult EXCELLENT FRIEND, MR. BRIGGS, ALWAYS SHOOTS NOW IN KNICKER-
BOCKERS, AND DECLARES THEY ARE THE MOST COMFORTABLE THINGS
POSSIBLE; AND SO THEY ARE.
PUNCH'S IMAGINARY CORRESPONDENCE.
Yiscount Palmerston to Lord John Bussell.
“ My dear John, “ Broadlands, Sept, 19.
“ Having a little time upon my hands, I cannot, I think, do
better than fulfil an intention which I have for some time entertained,
and address to you a few words of advice, which I am as sure that you
need as that you will take it in good part. Our long intimacy, the
similarity and intensity of our political convictions, besides my having
a year or two’s advantage (as it is amusingly called) over you in age,
will be my excuse for this course, if any excuse be needed.
“ With the sanction of my Sovereign, my dear John, I have placed
you in a situation of great responsibility. It is a situation which I
myself filled for many years, and history, rather than myself, shall say
how. I assure you, my dear John, tliat it will give me the most sin-
cere pleasure to recognise in you a worthy successor to myself; and
that I may have, in the afternoon of life, that gratification, is one of
the main reasons, and possibly a selfish one, for my now taking you in
hand.
“ My task would be an easier one, my dear John, but for your
extreme ignorance. Do not recoil at the word, or, as you sit in your
library glance indignantly round at books, most of them larger than
yourself, which you have laboriously read," sedulously analysed, and
| disgracefully disfigured with your profound marginal notes. I will do
you no injustice. I believe that the Oxford Examiners would do you
some did they pluck you for shortcomings in history. I am sure that
you know perfectly well that Maximilian the Second, of Germany,
I married the daughter of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, that
j Louis the Fourteenth declared the Gallican Church independent in
1682, that Lord Chatham, as Mr. Pitt, supported the Broad
Bottom Ministry, and that Mr. Wilberforce’s Bill for abolishing the
] Slave Trade was rejected by the House of Lords in 1804. Pray, my
dear John, do not suppose that I accuse you of being ignorant of
knowing myriads of tilings the knowledge of' which is entirely useless.
I should be most reluctant to put myself in the position of the Blind
Beggar of Bethnal Green with you, and drop my fact and date (as he
! dropped money against his daughter’s lovers) against your fact and
date. I should be bankrupt in no time.
| “ But, my dear John, your ignorance is of another and more serious
kind. You do not know men, and what is of more consequence, you
do not know women. You really amuse me (or would do so if I could
be amused at the misfortunes of my beloved country) when I see you
in society attempting to gain the confidence of the former, or the good-
will of the latter. Believe me, my dear John, no highly virtuous youth
from a Dissenting College, with Dwight’s Theology on his table as his
prize for an Essay on Predestination, could be more convinced that he
was the eighth wonder of the world, or more certain to he at the be*t j
a wonder whose extinguishment the proverb fixes at the ninth day. I j
wish, my dear John, that I could make you a man of the world. j
“ Let me instance, for a moment, a case or two in point, and you j
will forgive me when you observe how intently and affectionately I
must have watched you. At a party at your own house a few evenings
before the termination of the Session, you may remember that
D’Azeglio came up to you, and after a grimace or so, which you did
not very happily imitate, he asked you whether you had sent off a
certain despatch. What he wanted to know, of course, was whether I
had seen it, and you naturally wished him to think I had not. What
was your foolish answer ? ‘ TJn bon cheval n'a pas lesoin d’eperon’
with a half-toss of your head. He did not want to spur you, he wanted
j to know a fact, and your pert little answer was not evasive, only cha-
racteristic. Why did you not say point blank that you had sent it. j
You know quite well that you had not, so no harm, could have been i
done. Why not, my dear John, be frank and natural ? Those dusty |
little sayings which you hoard up, because you can pronounce them j
glibly, are really out of date.
“ Well, then, at Lady Palmerston’s assembly, the next night, a j
lady asked you a question about the Yillafranca treaty. It was a silly j
question, and intended to be, but it was not sillily put, nor is the asker
a silly woman. She had no business to ask it, when has a wo mail any
business to ask the things she does ? But she certainly got a sillier
answer, and it was intended for a wise one. You must out with ,
another of your proverbs, c U?ie femme ne c'ele que ce qu’elle ne salt pas/ j
My dear John, it was very pedantic and almost rude. Why on earth j
did you not explain to the woman confidentially anything that came \
into your head, and send her away pleased with your confidence, and j
utterly mystified? As it is, wait till you want her to keep young !
Gabbleton in town for a division. _ _ j
“ Now, my dear John, consider what I have said, and in your deal- j
ings with the world try to be a little more a man of the world. _ You j
have industry, and patience, and a certain amount of brains, which in ,
the brother of the Duke of B. may be called talent, and yon might do ]
a good deal for yourself if you would not be old-fashioned and pedantic, i
and would have a little more bonhommie—there’s a French word for
you as a sugarplum to sweeten the hitters. !
“ I need hardly caution yon to keep this letter to yourself, and bum :
it when read.
“ Always, my dear John,
“ Yours, faithfully,
“ The Lord John Bussell.” “ Palmerston.”
Lord John Bussell to Yiscount Palmerston.
“ My Dear Lord, _ “ Richmond, Sept. 20.
“ I am favoured with your Lordship’s letter dated the 19th
instant, but received this morning, at 11 a.m.
“ That the Prime Minister of England has time ‘upon his hands’is a
circumstance which may be differently interpreted by those who form
different opinions of the individual holding that office. I am unaware
that Mr. Fox or my Lord Melbourne ever complained of having too
much time for the business of the country.
“ Waiving the other points in your Lordship’s_ introductory para- j
graph, and especially the reference to the intensity of political con-
victions on the part of a Minister whose earnest devotion to Beform
actually makes nim tremble to approach it, I would observe that I
believe your Lordship was born in 1784, and that my natal year was j
1792. Your Lordship is pleased to compliment me on a certain j
acquaintance with dates, and it is due to myself to show that the credit j
is not entirely undeserved.
“ Your Lordship will be good enough to receive my protest against
the assumption that yon placed me anywhere. I have, in my time, had
most reluctantly to place yonr Lordship outside a Cabinet, but I cannot
admit that you have been in a condition to place me in one. In the
arrangement into wrhicb I entered from a sense of duty to my country,
and for the purpose of removing my Lord Derby from office, the
choice of place was my own, and I should have selected the Premier-
ship, but for feeling that the Foreign Office required more states-
manship than the nominal headship of the Government. To the implied
and scarcely decent allusion to the Sovereign, it may suffice for me to
remind your Lordship of a certain castigation procured by me for a
Minister who neglected the trifling formality of acquainting his Queen :
with the contents of his foreign despatches.
“ Passing over a variety of phrases which would be impertinent in !
an individual less accustomed to substitute impertinence for pleasantry,
I would simply remark, that your Lordship’s successes in this world by
no means justify your adopting a dictatorial line. I could find in the
books, to which you make taunting allusion, more profitable reading |
than the study of your Lordship’s career, but I do not think I should
detect in one of them an instance of an individual assuming to be
a statesman, and at the close of a long career of alternated hollow
triumph and helpless tumble, preaching Insincerity as the leading .
article of his political faith. [
September 24, 1859. ] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
SPORTING INTELLIGENCE,
0Ult EXCELLENT FRIEND, MR. BRIGGS, ALWAYS SHOOTS NOW IN KNICKER-
BOCKERS, AND DECLARES THEY ARE THE MOST COMFORTABLE THINGS
POSSIBLE; AND SO THEY ARE.
PUNCH'S IMAGINARY CORRESPONDENCE.
Yiscount Palmerston to Lord John Bussell.
“ My dear John, “ Broadlands, Sept, 19.
“ Having a little time upon my hands, I cannot, I think, do
better than fulfil an intention which I have for some time entertained,
and address to you a few words of advice, which I am as sure that you
need as that you will take it in good part. Our long intimacy, the
similarity and intensity of our political convictions, besides my having
a year or two’s advantage (as it is amusingly called) over you in age,
will be my excuse for this course, if any excuse be needed.
“ With the sanction of my Sovereign, my dear John, I have placed
you in a situation of great responsibility. It is a situation which I
myself filled for many years, and history, rather than myself, shall say
how. I assure you, my dear John, tliat it will give me the most sin-
cere pleasure to recognise in you a worthy successor to myself; and
that I may have, in the afternoon of life, that gratification, is one of
the main reasons, and possibly a selfish one, for my now taking you in
hand.
“ My task would be an easier one, my dear John, but for your
extreme ignorance. Do not recoil at the word, or, as you sit in your
library glance indignantly round at books, most of them larger than
yourself, which you have laboriously read," sedulously analysed, and
| disgracefully disfigured with your profound marginal notes. I will do
you no injustice. I believe that the Oxford Examiners would do you
some did they pluck you for shortcomings in history. I am sure that
you know perfectly well that Maximilian the Second, of Germany,
I married the daughter of the Emperor Charles the Fifth, that
j Louis the Fourteenth declared the Gallican Church independent in
1682, that Lord Chatham, as Mr. Pitt, supported the Broad
Bottom Ministry, and that Mr. Wilberforce’s Bill for abolishing the
] Slave Trade was rejected by the House of Lords in 1804. Pray, my
dear John, do not suppose that I accuse you of being ignorant of
knowing myriads of tilings the knowledge of' which is entirely useless.
I should be most reluctant to put myself in the position of the Blind
Beggar of Bethnal Green with you, and drop my fact and date (as he
! dropped money against his daughter’s lovers) against your fact and
date. I should be bankrupt in no time.
| “ But, my dear John, your ignorance is of another and more serious
kind. You do not know men, and what is of more consequence, you
do not know women. You really amuse me (or would do so if I could
be amused at the misfortunes of my beloved country) when I see you
in society attempting to gain the confidence of the former, or the good-
will of the latter. Believe me, my dear John, no highly virtuous youth
from a Dissenting College, with Dwight’s Theology on his table as his
prize for an Essay on Predestination, could be more convinced that he
was the eighth wonder of the world, or more certain to he at the be*t j
a wonder whose extinguishment the proverb fixes at the ninth day. I j
wish, my dear John, that I could make you a man of the world. j
“ Let me instance, for a moment, a case or two in point, and you j
will forgive me when you observe how intently and affectionately I
must have watched you. At a party at your own house a few evenings
before the termination of the Session, you may remember that
D’Azeglio came up to you, and after a grimace or so, which you did
not very happily imitate, he asked you whether you had sent off a
certain despatch. What he wanted to know, of course, was whether I
had seen it, and you naturally wished him to think I had not. What
was your foolish answer ? ‘ TJn bon cheval n'a pas lesoin d’eperon’
with a half-toss of your head. He did not want to spur you, he wanted
j to know a fact, and your pert little answer was not evasive, only cha-
racteristic. Why did you not say point blank that you had sent it. j
You know quite well that you had not, so no harm, could have been i
done. Why not, my dear John, be frank and natural ? Those dusty |
little sayings which you hoard up, because you can pronounce them j
glibly, are really out of date.
“ Well, then, at Lady Palmerston’s assembly, the next night, a j
lady asked you a question about the Yillafranca treaty. It was a silly j
question, and intended to be, but it was not sillily put, nor is the asker
a silly woman. She had no business to ask it, when has a wo mail any
business to ask the things she does ? But she certainly got a sillier
answer, and it was intended for a wise one. You must out with ,
another of your proverbs, c U?ie femme ne c'ele que ce qu’elle ne salt pas/ j
My dear John, it was very pedantic and almost rude. Why on earth j
did you not explain to the woman confidentially anything that came \
into your head, and send her away pleased with your confidence, and j
utterly mystified? As it is, wait till you want her to keep young !
Gabbleton in town for a division. _ _ j
“ Now, my dear John, consider what I have said, and in your deal- j
ings with the world try to be a little more a man of the world. _ You j
have industry, and patience, and a certain amount of brains, which in ,
the brother of the Duke of B. may be called talent, and yon might do ]
a good deal for yourself if you would not be old-fashioned and pedantic, i
and would have a little more bonhommie—there’s a French word for
you as a sugarplum to sweeten the hitters. !
“ I need hardly caution yon to keep this letter to yourself, and bum :
it when read.
“ Always, my dear John,
“ Yours, faithfully,
“ The Lord John Bussell.” “ Palmerston.”
Lord John Bussell to Yiscount Palmerston.
“ My Dear Lord, _ “ Richmond, Sept. 20.
“ I am favoured with your Lordship’s letter dated the 19th
instant, but received this morning, at 11 a.m.
“ That the Prime Minister of England has time ‘upon his hands’is a
circumstance which may be differently interpreted by those who form
different opinions of the individual holding that office. I am unaware
that Mr. Fox or my Lord Melbourne ever complained of having too
much time for the business of the country.
“ Waiving the other points in your Lordship’s_ introductory para- j
graph, and especially the reference to the intensity of political con-
victions on the part of a Minister whose earnest devotion to Beform
actually makes nim tremble to approach it, I would observe that I
believe your Lordship was born in 1784, and that my natal year was j
1792. Your Lordship is pleased to compliment me on a certain j
acquaintance with dates, and it is due to myself to show that the credit j
is not entirely undeserved.
“ Your Lordship will be good enough to receive my protest against
the assumption that yon placed me anywhere. I have, in my time, had
most reluctantly to place yonr Lordship outside a Cabinet, but I cannot
admit that you have been in a condition to place me in one. In the
arrangement into wrhicb I entered from a sense of duty to my country,
and for the purpose of removing my Lord Derby from office, the
choice of place was my own, and I should have selected the Premier-
ship, but for feeling that the Foreign Office required more states-
manship than the nominal headship of the Government. To the implied
and scarcely decent allusion to the Sovereign, it may suffice for me to
remind your Lordship of a certain castigation procured by me for a
Minister who neglected the trifling formality of acquainting his Queen :
with the contents of his foreign despatches.
“ Passing over a variety of phrases which would be impertinent in !
an individual less accustomed to substitute impertinence for pleasantry,
I would simply remark, that your Lordship’s successes in this world by
no means justify your adopting a dictatorial line. I could find in the
books, to which you make taunting allusion, more profitable reading |
than the study of your Lordship’s career, but I do not think I should
detect in one of them an instance of an individual assuming to be
a statesman, and at the close of a long career of alternated hollow
triumph and helpless tumble, preaching Insincerity as the leading .
article of his political faith. [