Punch: Punch (38.1860)

138

[April 7, 1860.

1'

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

LIBEL ON THE BISHOP OF LONDON.

HE other day, which, it
may be necessary to
state, was the 30th
of March, because
perhaps some people
will suppose it to have
been the 1st of April,
there appeared in a
daily contemporary a
paragraph headed, The
Durham Clergy and the
Bishop of London, and
comprising a declara-
tion to which those
reverend gentlemen are
alleged to have busied

_themselves in obtaining

clerical signatures ; the
manifesto, which re-
lates to the riots at St.
George’s - in - the - East,
concluding with the
following piece of im-
pertinence :—

“Of a more recent act
of aggression purporting to
be perpetrated with the

express sanction of the bishop (but this we can scarcely credit) we dare not speak in the terras
which we feel most befitting the subject , lest we should appear to overstep the bounds of pro-
priety. We are most anxious to uphold and maintain the respect and reverence due to the office
of a spiritual father, but we cannot fu-bear the expression of our unfeigned regret and surprise
that, in the exercise of his office, the Bishop of London should have authorised an act of dese-
cration in removing from the church, in deference to a godless clamour, such ecclesiastical
ornaments and symbols as are sanctioned as well by the canons of the Church as by the
| decisions of the highest courts of law.”

Represented as emanating from the Durham clergy, this insolent and officious
j censure of the Bishop of London must be a hoax. Those reverend men are
j neither curs nor jackasses, and the foregoing vituperation is, as it were, a mixture

of yelp and bray. Afraid to speak in the terms which
they felt most befitting the subject, were the anonymous
maligners who composed that stupid abuse of a judicious
prelate ? Afraid to speak their mind, were they, lest they
should appear to “overstep the bounds of propriety?”
On which side of the bounds of propriety do they imagine
themselves to stand, in accusing the Bishop of London of
authorising an act of desecration ? What do they call
such language as that? A respectable jury would call it
libellous. The Bishop of London would have a good
ground of action against his virulent detractors if he could
discover their names—those which are appended to the
document are of course fictitious. He might not, to be
sure, get a verdict, because the jury might not be respect-
able, and twelve fools in a box, though they might award
a dirty quack, or a puffing humbug, heavy damages for the
exposure inflicted on him by an honest journalist, would
very probably refuse justice to an exemplary bishop,
defamed by scurrilous fellows. As they would be actuated
by sympathy with the quack and the puffer, so they would
be influenced by antipathy to the prelate, lie being a gentle-
man. Moreover, the jury might contain some papists,
who would really consider desecration involved in any aet
implying negation of the sacrosanctity of the symbols,
wooden or textile, which are adored or venerated by
themselves and their apes of St. George’s-in-the-East.

The Memorial Funds.

(Mr. Punch's Contribution.)

HEMANS. HALLAM. HOGO.

Three H’s, in three different counties born,
Hibernia, Albion, Caledon adorn.

The first in gentlest Poesy surpassed,

The next in Justice. Humour claims the last.
Send tribute to the Name most dear to you,
But, reader, don’t neglect the other two.

PUNCH’S ESSENCE OE PARLIAMENT.

March 26, Monday. It is not impossible that the very important
; debate of this day (already a day memorable to the universe for all
time to come, being the birthday of the Duke of Cambridge) may be
I referred to hereafter, when the relations between certain Powers are
not so sweetly amicable as at present. Lord John Russell, Poreign
Secretary, had, hitherto, as Mr. Bunch hath recorded, rather objected
to being talked to on the subject of Savoy. But as the esteemed
| Classics remark, De quibvs certus es, loquere (ypportune, and Lord John,
being now perfectly certain as to the intentions of our friend Electus,
did speak out with manful utterance touching that potentate. Replying
to Mr. Horsman, who delivered a fierce Philippic (fillip, as the
Wiscount pronounces it) against Louis Napoleon, and denounced
him as a Deceiver, Insolent, and Perfidious (Horshan’s constituents
have been sitting upon him and resolving that he is not representing
them) Lord John Russell declined to adopt that sort of language,
but used some of his own, which, coming from a gentleman of habitual
moderation and self-respect, and from a Minister of England’s and
I Mr. Bunch's Queen, descended like a thunderbolt upon the Spoiler of
: the Slopes. Lord John said, that in July and in January, he had
warned the Emperor, of the French, that if he began with one act
of aggression, his subjects, who were of a “warlike” character, would
call on him to commit other unrighteous acts, and that now that the
Savoy business had been perpetrated, it was impossible to regard
Electus in the way we had endeavoured to do. We must keep on
good terms with other strong nations, and be prepared “if future
occasion should arise — and it might arise to unite with those
nations, and declare that the settlement and peace of Europe should
not be disturbed. So spoke John Russell, and the cheers that
rang loud from the Liberal benches were as loudly echoed by the Con-
| servatives, for utterance had at last been given to the sentiments of
England and of Mr. Bunch.

Lord John Manners said, that the Foreign Minister’s words would
vibrate from one end of England to the other. Mr. Bright, of course,
protested against, them, called Savoy politically worthless, and thought
that we had nothing to do with the question. He introduced a pleasant
reference to the Morning Advertiser, which has been writing strongly
against L. N., and said that the paper in question was notorious for
an unequalled mixture of piety and ruffianism. (The editor’s just fury,
next day, foamed over like a pot of porter with a splendid head to it.)
Lord Claude Hamilton expressed Tory pleasure that we were likely
to become better friends with the despotic powers. Mr. Kin glare

described Mr. Bright as a “man” who believed in nobody but him-
self, and had no good grounds for that faith. And then the discussion
ended; but its echoes are rolling over Europe. Touching the present
views of the other powers, it may be convenient to remark that,
according to Lord John, they may be said to be eminently Sulky.
Austria will not stir, and says that the annexing Savoy to France is
no worse than the annexing Tuscany to Sardinia. Russia takes the
high Anointed tone, and says that a King has a perfect right to give
away, and another King to accept, a province; but both at Berlin and
Vienna there seems a feeling that Switzerland is being placed in a false
position. There is a small piece of land, bounded on one side by
France, and on the other by Holland and Prussia; and we get a great
many rabbits from it. One of these days we may have to consider
whether the rabbits would not be just as good if they were French
subjects. If we decide that we do not care whose rabbits they are, so
that they are cheap and tender, a policy worthy of Glare-market will
restore a master to Claremont.

An Income-Tax Debate followed. The fiery Gladstone defended
his calculations. Non sine Diz animosus infans, as our friend Q. H. F.
says ; and the brave boy was sternly pitched into by Mr. Disraeli,
who charged him with laying down abominable principles of
taxation, and being party to a Reform Bill which was to enable the
masses to carry such principles out. In discussion on the duty on
Contract Notes, Mr. Bentinck abused the Stock Exchange as Pande-
monium, and objected to the legalisation of its time-bargains, which
tempted people to gamble. Mr. Gladstone said that there were very
respectable Stockbrokers, that there was nothing wrong in stockjobbing,
and that if fools chose to ruin themselves it was not the business of
the House of Commons. Then, on the Wine Licences, the indefatigable
Gladstone had to make another long speech, and in the course of it
expressed very plainly his contempt for the present licensing system,
as administered by the Magistrates (a contempt in which most persons
who understand the subject share); and he pronounced his hostility to
the monopolies that grew out of “vested rights” in licences. The
Witters have much influence in the House, owing to their familiarity
with masses of the lower class of electors, and, being aided by the
Brewers, the Bungs made a good fight.

The Reform Bill was to have been discussed, but was once more thrown
over, till the Friday, and much scorn and derision of it was expressed
by Mr- Disraeli and others, the Leader of Opposition hoping that
the Ministers were not going to insult the country by again bringing
such a measure before the House. The Lords had a good talk about
Harbours; and it appears that scientific people consider many of