DOI issue:
August 20, 1859
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16864#0086
August 20, 1859.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
75
i
Saturday. The ultimate day. Everything being huddled up and
bundled out of the way, Lord Campbell sent for the Commons, into
the House of Lords, and delivered the following sentiments on the part
of His Royal Mistress.
You may go. You have been good boys.
But next Session you must really do Something.
Eoreign folks are trying to get Me into Congress.
I scarcely know whether I ought to consent.
I should be glad, of course, to promote peace and quietness.
I have sent a Plenipo to Pekin.
I am unaware that I am going to be quarrelled with.
India is pacified. She must be reformed.
Especially in regard to money matters.
I am extremely obliged for Military and Naval reserves.
Also to you. Commons, for all money voted.
I am rejoiced that the country is happy and content.
Now go home, and continue good boys.
The usual bowing and handshaking having been performed, exeunt
omnes.
And so Mr. Punch, with infinite satisfaction to himself and the world,
once more bottles up the Essence of Talk. Would he could as easily
bottle up the Essence of Thames. Plaudite.
DEFEND US FROM OUR DEFENDERS!
“Punch,
“ Newspapers to my mind are intolerable nuisances, and I
don’t often waste my time and temper in perusing theni. But the
other day I had to undergo a railway journey, and as the train of course
was late (these newfangled conveyances are never punctual to their
time), I walked up to the bookstall and asked for the John Bull, that
being the only paper which an Englishman may read without being
disgusted with low revolutionary sentiments. ‘ Haven’t a John Bull,
Sir, but here’s last week’s Examiner, if that will do as well for you.’
This was the insulting answer I received. Of course the fellow knew
that the Examiner was one of the most radical of papers, and seeing by
my face that I was Tory to the bone, the blackguard, Sir, no doubt said
what he did to chaff me. Being ignorant, however, of its revolting
character, I paid my sixpence for the paper, and was surprised to find
in some respects, that it was worth the money. In an article, for
instance, upon the getting up of Rifle Clubs, I came upon the following
most sensible remarks:—
“ There are certain persons in this country ■who do not hesitate to advocate the
arming and equipment, at the cost of the State, of the several hundreds of thousands
of men, who with no qualification beyond a stout heart and brawny arms, would
claim their right to be enrolled in defence of the kingdom. This would be creating
a national force with a vengeance. Why, every common day labourer, whose whole
year’s wages wculd not perhaps amount to the price of his rifle and uniform, would
come forward as a volunteer, and the State would not only be putting arms into the
hands of this dangerous class, but actually teaching them how to use these weapons
after they had got them.”
“ This redudio ad absurdum is excellently put. The idea of common
labourers being trusted with rifles seems to my mind, I confess, too
preposterous to dream of. Besides the danger to the State, only think
of the great peril, to our partridges and pheasants. As the Examiner
points out:—
“ Hitherto our admirable game laws have, in a measure, served to keep the great
mass of the pe -pie ignorant of the use of fire-aims ; witness the majority of our
recruits, who on joining the army scarcely know the difference between the butt
and the barrel of their muskets ; but once give every grown man a rifle, and instruct
him how to hit a target at 500 yards, in a few years there will be as many dead shots
in England as there are in Kentucky; and although invaders might thus be kept
at a distance, it would be at the expense of all we hold most dear; from such men
no pheasant would be safe, no deer park would be sacred.”
“ A pretty prospect, truly ! Defend us, say I, from having such
defenders! It is very well to look to the preserving of the country,
but we must also keep an eye to the preserving of our pheasants. I
for one have far more fear of poachers than invaders. England without
the Game Laws would not be safe to live in : and who could hope to
see the Game Laws kept in force, when ‘every grown man’ had a
rifle, and knew how to use it ?
“ People talk with some alarm of the defenceless state of England,
but it frightens me far more to think of the defenceless state of my
plantations. As it is, by keeping up a standing force of gamekeepers,
I manage that my pheasants sleep in tolerable safety; but if rifles
be sown broadcast among our poaching population, no army of obser-
vation that I could hope to organise would be sufficient to keep watch
on their nocturnal movements.
“ But a still more clinching proof of the necessity there is to keep
our Rifle Clubs select, and to admit no Volunteers but men of known
position, is found in the concluding passage of the article
“ We are quite prepared to hear the advocates of anarchy and socialism contend
that a man may be unable to pay £10 for his weapon and dress, and yet be attached
to his country, if only by the selfish tie of a home and a family, which he would
desire to defend if attacked by an invading foe. Such .claptrap hardly requires
serious confutation. A man who does not possess a £10 note, can hardly have a
home tnat is worth protecting ; and if, under such circumstances, he should have a
family, his gross imprudence'only furnishes an additional argument against in-
trustuig mm with the use of fire-arms. * * Once admit universal franchise in
the Volunteer corps, and it will make its way into other institutions, till the throne
and the altar shall be undermined.”
. Precisely my opinion, Punch. These Rifle Clubs, you may depend
on if, are innovations fraught with danger, and it behoves us to he
enary of. affording them encouragement. Government has done wisely
m damping to some measure the ardour that has flamed for them, and
I think the more cold water that is thrown on it, the better. Eor only
just consider, once place the working-men and the well bred ones on a
looting (which we should do by admitting them alike, as Volunteers),
and where, pray, is the social quality to stop? We should ere long
have our peers hobnobbing with our peasants; and our lords, from
standing next them, may form friendships with our labourers. In
short, there is no saying how these Rifle Clubs may harm, us, if we don’t
take care to Keep them properly exclusive. Equality of footing is the
thm edge ot the wedge, and when the wedge is driven home, all the
bulwarks of Old England will be split up for a bonfire, and Republicans
and Chartists will dance around it in delight!
As my life is well insured, and I am not a Member of Parliament
(oi -j- nngilt be carried oft by the miasma of the river), I Quite expect
to bye to see my worst predictions realised. Meantime, Punch, I
remain, with great contempt for your contemporaries (the Examhier
excepted)
“ Your obedient humble servant,
“ One oe the Old School.”
*, , , T '* 1311 tuucpiivc ciuy paper ui ns privileges,
we should much regret to weaken the force of this exception. But
v e feel constrained to state, that we believe the quoted article was
meant to be ironical; and by writing as he has done, ‘One of the Old
School, has only shown his length of (y)ears.
That’s ihe way the Money Goes.”
In an article the other day upon the Civil
Service Estimates, the Times began a sen
tence by remarking that:—
"As for the public purse, it is a mere abstrac-
tion.”
Yes, exactly. That’s just it. The public
purse is just a “mere abstraction” from our
private pockets.
enactin
fare to
g that
break
Cab Law Amendment.
Great inconvenience is often
experienced by the rider in a
cab, from the want of sufficient
means of communication with
the driver. To thrust your head
out of the cab-door and bawl,
is unpleasant, undignified, and
for a long time ineffectual. The
w’indow behind the cabman ge-
nerally sticks. To remedy this
great nuisance let an improve-
ment of the last Cab Act be
introduced early next Session,
in the absence of a check-string, it shall be lawful for any
the window in front of him in order to poke the driver.
Painful Separation in High Life.
It is with feelings of the deepest regret, such as, in our present
afflicted state, it would be utterly impossible for us to describe, that
we record the following distressing fact, which we extract from one of
the French telegrams of last-week
“Tiie Duke of Malakoff has left Nancy.”
What, let us ask in the name of outraged humanity, has “ Nancy ”
done to be left by the Duke in this brutal and public manner ?
a peerless example.
The Duke oe Northumberland has lately given a thousand
bottles of sherry to each of three hospitals. It has been remarked
that it would be well for other members of the aristocracy to “do
likewise,” but that the Duke is one Per se (Percy).
i
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
75
i
Saturday. The ultimate day. Everything being huddled up and
bundled out of the way, Lord Campbell sent for the Commons, into
the House of Lords, and delivered the following sentiments on the part
of His Royal Mistress.
You may go. You have been good boys.
But next Session you must really do Something.
Eoreign folks are trying to get Me into Congress.
I scarcely know whether I ought to consent.
I should be glad, of course, to promote peace and quietness.
I have sent a Plenipo to Pekin.
I am unaware that I am going to be quarrelled with.
India is pacified. She must be reformed.
Especially in regard to money matters.
I am extremely obliged for Military and Naval reserves.
Also to you. Commons, for all money voted.
I am rejoiced that the country is happy and content.
Now go home, and continue good boys.
The usual bowing and handshaking having been performed, exeunt
omnes.
And so Mr. Punch, with infinite satisfaction to himself and the world,
once more bottles up the Essence of Talk. Would he could as easily
bottle up the Essence of Thames. Plaudite.
DEFEND US FROM OUR DEFENDERS!
“Punch,
“ Newspapers to my mind are intolerable nuisances, and I
don’t often waste my time and temper in perusing theni. But the
other day I had to undergo a railway journey, and as the train of course
was late (these newfangled conveyances are never punctual to their
time), I walked up to the bookstall and asked for the John Bull, that
being the only paper which an Englishman may read without being
disgusted with low revolutionary sentiments. ‘ Haven’t a John Bull,
Sir, but here’s last week’s Examiner, if that will do as well for you.’
This was the insulting answer I received. Of course the fellow knew
that the Examiner was one of the most radical of papers, and seeing by
my face that I was Tory to the bone, the blackguard, Sir, no doubt said
what he did to chaff me. Being ignorant, however, of its revolting
character, I paid my sixpence for the paper, and was surprised to find
in some respects, that it was worth the money. In an article, for
instance, upon the getting up of Rifle Clubs, I came upon the following
most sensible remarks:—
“ There are certain persons in this country ■who do not hesitate to advocate the
arming and equipment, at the cost of the State, of the several hundreds of thousands
of men, who with no qualification beyond a stout heart and brawny arms, would
claim their right to be enrolled in defence of the kingdom. This would be creating
a national force with a vengeance. Why, every common day labourer, whose whole
year’s wages wculd not perhaps amount to the price of his rifle and uniform, would
come forward as a volunteer, and the State would not only be putting arms into the
hands of this dangerous class, but actually teaching them how to use these weapons
after they had got them.”
“ This redudio ad absurdum is excellently put. The idea of common
labourers being trusted with rifles seems to my mind, I confess, too
preposterous to dream of. Besides the danger to the State, only think
of the great peril, to our partridges and pheasants. As the Examiner
points out:—
“ Hitherto our admirable game laws have, in a measure, served to keep the great
mass of the pe -pie ignorant of the use of fire-aims ; witness the majority of our
recruits, who on joining the army scarcely know the difference between the butt
and the barrel of their muskets ; but once give every grown man a rifle, and instruct
him how to hit a target at 500 yards, in a few years there will be as many dead shots
in England as there are in Kentucky; and although invaders might thus be kept
at a distance, it would be at the expense of all we hold most dear; from such men
no pheasant would be safe, no deer park would be sacred.”
“ A pretty prospect, truly ! Defend us, say I, from having such
defenders! It is very well to look to the preserving of the country,
but we must also keep an eye to the preserving of our pheasants. I
for one have far more fear of poachers than invaders. England without
the Game Laws would not be safe to live in : and who could hope to
see the Game Laws kept in force, when ‘every grown man’ had a
rifle, and knew how to use it ?
“ People talk with some alarm of the defenceless state of England,
but it frightens me far more to think of the defenceless state of my
plantations. As it is, by keeping up a standing force of gamekeepers,
I manage that my pheasants sleep in tolerable safety; but if rifles
be sown broadcast among our poaching population, no army of obser-
vation that I could hope to organise would be sufficient to keep watch
on their nocturnal movements.
“ But a still more clinching proof of the necessity there is to keep
our Rifle Clubs select, and to admit no Volunteers but men of known
position, is found in the concluding passage of the article
“ We are quite prepared to hear the advocates of anarchy and socialism contend
that a man may be unable to pay £10 for his weapon and dress, and yet be attached
to his country, if only by the selfish tie of a home and a family, which he would
desire to defend if attacked by an invading foe. Such .claptrap hardly requires
serious confutation. A man who does not possess a £10 note, can hardly have a
home tnat is worth protecting ; and if, under such circumstances, he should have a
family, his gross imprudence'only furnishes an additional argument against in-
trustuig mm with the use of fire-arms. * * Once admit universal franchise in
the Volunteer corps, and it will make its way into other institutions, till the throne
and the altar shall be undermined.”
. Precisely my opinion, Punch. These Rifle Clubs, you may depend
on if, are innovations fraught with danger, and it behoves us to he
enary of. affording them encouragement. Government has done wisely
m damping to some measure the ardour that has flamed for them, and
I think the more cold water that is thrown on it, the better. Eor only
just consider, once place the working-men and the well bred ones on a
looting (which we should do by admitting them alike, as Volunteers),
and where, pray, is the social quality to stop? We should ere long
have our peers hobnobbing with our peasants; and our lords, from
standing next them, may form friendships with our labourers. In
short, there is no saying how these Rifle Clubs may harm, us, if we don’t
take care to Keep them properly exclusive. Equality of footing is the
thm edge ot the wedge, and when the wedge is driven home, all the
bulwarks of Old England will be split up for a bonfire, and Republicans
and Chartists will dance around it in delight!
As my life is well insured, and I am not a Member of Parliament
(oi -j- nngilt be carried oft by the miasma of the river), I Quite expect
to bye to see my worst predictions realised. Meantime, Punch, I
remain, with great contempt for your contemporaries (the Examhier
excepted)
“ Your obedient humble servant,
“ One oe the Old School.”
*, , , T '* 1311 tuucpiivc ciuy paper ui ns privileges,
we should much regret to weaken the force of this exception. But
v e feel constrained to state, that we believe the quoted article was
meant to be ironical; and by writing as he has done, ‘One of the Old
School, has only shown his length of (y)ears.
That’s ihe way the Money Goes.”
In an article the other day upon the Civil
Service Estimates, the Times began a sen
tence by remarking that:—
"As for the public purse, it is a mere abstrac-
tion.”
Yes, exactly. That’s just it. The public
purse is just a “mere abstraction” from our
private pockets.
enactin
fare to
g that
break
Cab Law Amendment.
Great inconvenience is often
experienced by the rider in a
cab, from the want of sufficient
means of communication with
the driver. To thrust your head
out of the cab-door and bawl,
is unpleasant, undignified, and
for a long time ineffectual. The
w’indow behind the cabman ge-
nerally sticks. To remedy this
great nuisance let an improve-
ment of the last Cab Act be
introduced early next Session,
in the absence of a check-string, it shall be lawful for any
the window in front of him in order to poke the driver.
Painful Separation in High Life.
It is with feelings of the deepest regret, such as, in our present
afflicted state, it would be utterly impossible for us to describe, that
we record the following distressing fact, which we extract from one of
the French telegrams of last-week
“Tiie Duke of Malakoff has left Nancy.”
What, let us ask in the name of outraged humanity, has “ Nancy ”
done to be left by the Duke in this brutal and public manner ?
a peerless example.
The Duke oe Northumberland has lately given a thousand
bottles of sherry to each of three hospitals. It has been remarked
that it would be well for other members of the aristocracy to “do
likewise,” but that the Duke is one Per se (Percy).
i