Punch (37.1859)

December 17, 1859. J

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

251

CRIMINAUNE.

LETTER FROM AN ACTOR.

Financial Reform.

A Lam is strongly wanted to punish very severely the Waiters in
the neighbourhood of Leicester Square, who make a practice of giving
you in change francs for shillings. It is always a mistake, and they
are always extremely sorry, but the mistake is invariably in their
favour. Let you by accident make the same mistake, and you will see
how very quickly the Waiter will find it out.

hat is she, look at her; there
she goes !

What a fine lady ’midst all
those clothes,

Why can’t she pay for them
what she owes ?

There’s the poor creature those
things that made,

Starving because she has not
been paid,

By that selfish dishonest unfeel-
ing jade.

Can’t work, for means to buy
cloth she lacks,

Needles and thread to get, tape
and wax,

To cover proud ladies’ expen-
sive backs:

What will she do P—her re-
sources fail—

Labour and toil are of no avail:

Why, she will steal, and be sent
to gaol.

There shows her debtor teeth
white with milk,

Madam, with satin spread round,
and silk,

Shames not that famishing
wretch to bilk.

What shall we call those pro-
digious things,

Stretchers, and steel frames,
and hoops, and springs,

Whereupon Jezebel’s finery
swings ?

Caging the form of a cozening
quean,

Crime who enforces by swin-
dling mean,

Let it henceforth be named
Criminaline!

To Mr. Punch.

“ Sir, “Saturday.

“ As it_might injure me in
my profession if it were supposed that
I ever went to Church to make a dis-
turbance, I beg to say that I am not
the ‘ very zealous lad named Selby ’
who was yesterday charged before
Mr. Yariiley with misconducting
himself in St. George’s Church iu the
East. Persons of my profession, Sir,
are always male if actors, but seldom
malefactors.

“ Yours perpetually,

“ Charles Selby.”

“ Theatre Royal, Adel phi P

EXCHANGE OF SEATS.

It would be a curious, and withal a
moving sight to see the Pope leave
St. Peter’s chair, and t.ake up his
future residence on the Blarney Stone
in Ireland. Pilgrims and devotees
might kiss the Pope’s toe and the
Blarney Stone at the same time,
thereby enjoying a double blessing.
More improbable things may occur
than Pros removing his Court to the
Green Isle, where, if he could only
succeed in making the natives happy
and contented, it would be the grand-
est miracle his Church has ever
accomplished. In our opinion, the
Blarney Stone would make a canital
seat of Roman Catholicism. With
Wiseman on one side, and Bowyer
on the other, and the Pope in the
middle, the tableau would be complete.

“Premier Blacking.”—Defaming
Lord Palmerston.

MOPS AND BLOOMS.

Some considerable excitement was occasioned, we believe, in the
I fashionable world, by the letter-press attached to a recent cut in Punch,

\ wherein a gentleman was spoken of as being “ Mops and Brooms.”
i “Mopth and Broomth ! ” exclaimed Miss Simperion. “ Now, what
! can Mithter PuntKth artitht mean by ‘Mopth and Broomth?’ I
can’t gueth what it ith. I mutlit atlik Gout bin Atjgtjtiituth. Couthin
! Augtjthtdth, can you tell me what ith meant by ‘Broomth and
: Mopth?’” And Cousin Augustus, when appealed to, doubtless
made the sage reply that it was meawly—aw—slang phwase, with which
—aw—gyurls of course were not expected to be conversant. Then, on
being further questioned (Miss Simperton declaring that she does
“ tho love thlang phwafheth ”), Cousin Augustus, it is probable, ex-
plained that “Mops and Brooms” was an equivalent expressionfor getting
“tight” or “sewewed,” or whatever term be used to signify inebriated.

Another meaning is, however, attached to the word “mops,” of
which young lady-readers are no doubt in equal ignorance, and it is
therefore our delight to explain it and enlighten them. A “mop” is,
in some counties, a synonym for “fair,” and is used to denote a
hiring place for farm-servants. Whether “ mops ” be worth preserving
for the queerness of their name, just as certain dogs are kept for the
queerness of their looks, is a question which we leave philosophers to
argue. That there is any other reason which can plead for their
retention, is a point, we apprehend, which admits of no dispute. At
a meeting held at Worcester, the speakers, speaking from experience,
averred that Statute fairs, or “mops,” were mischievous, and needless,
and unprofitable nuisances; and that the best thing to be done with
them was, to trundle them away into the dust-hole of disuse.

Said Lord Lyttelton, the chairman ■—

“ That these mops were evils was beyond controversy ; the only question was
| whether they were necessary evils, or were counterbalanced by attendant advan-
tages. Looking at these mops as applicable for the object which they professed—
! the engagement of agricultural servants—he could not see that they were either
i convenient or desirable means to the end. The relations between master and

servant ought to bo commenced on a different footing ; there should be some
previous mutual acquaintance, and some knowledge of the respective character
of both master and servant, which could not exist under a system of hiring at
mops. All must depend, as it were, on au'engagement at first sight, and depend-
ent upon the physical qualities of the servant. But, beyond this, there must be an
evil in the promiscuous gathering together of young: persons of both sexes without
control, and there was with mops an evil which did not necessarily attend other
public gatherings for a particular object. Why should the assembling together of
farmers and their servants for the purpose of hiring entail these evils ? The answer
given was that it was not necessary at all, but that the collecting together of large
numbers of persons attracted others for the sake of profit.”

Sufficient reasons these why mops should be mopped out, and their
stains be wiped away from the face of rural England. There is one
point, however, to be thought of ere discarding them, which Lord
Lyttelton proceeded to dispose of thus:—

“ With regard to the question of providing some recreation and amusement for
the labourers in lieu of the mops, ho was aware that that point had been discussed,
but it was not intended to propose at this meeting any organised system of recre-
ation for those classes. He thought that was a subject that might safely be left to
take its natural course. It was a subject which was very much thought of m these
days, and he thought that tho employers of labour, under the advice of the cleigy
and gentry resident around them, would be found willing and ready to provide a
better and a far more unobjectionable mode of amusement than that afforded by the
mops for those whom they employed. {Hear, hear.)"

Whether or no “hops” might, under due restrictions, be field instead
of “mops,” is a point which may he argued by those who like to do so
Dancing is, by many, thought a healthy, wholesome exercise, and
under proper supervision, it might not only improve the deportment ot
our clod-hoppers, but also, very possibly, amend their moral bearing.
Rifle practice too would be a “far more unobjectionable mode of
amusement” than that which is at present afforded by a mop; aut.
although the wives and sweethearts could not take such active steps
in it as they would do in the dancing, thev might perform the lookmg-
on part, as their sisters do in Switzerland, and stimulate the shooters
without giving them strong drinks. But be this done or not, it is at
any rate high time that the “Statutes” be repealed; and whatever
recreation be established in their stead, there must clearly be some
brooms found to sweep away the “ mops.”