DOI Heft:
October 13, 1860
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16866#0157
October 13, 18G0.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
149
to revive them was in general a useless and unprofitable attempt.
Among other regulations it was now provided that nobody but ban-
nerets or men of high estate should wear cloth of gold, of crimson, or
of velvet, nor should they use the fur of ermine, of marten, or of
lettice,* nor wear long hanging sleeves, or gowns which touched the
ground. Four years afterwards it was ordained that no man, of what-
ever rank or wealth, should wear a gown or other garment that was
cut or slashed in pieces in the form of leaves or Tetters, under the
penalty of forfeiting the same; and it was ordered that the tailors
employed by such offenders should in future be imprisoned “ during
the king’s pleasure ” for abetting the offence. Should any sumptuary
laws be enacted in our time, we trust that this wise hint will not be
lost upon our senators. We think too that the penance might with
profit be extended, so that female culprits might also be subjected to
it. Were our milliners made liable to get a month’s hard labour for
sending out a dress of more than proper amplitude, we should soon
hear that wide petticoats were going out of fashion, and in proportion
as they lessened would the comfort of the masculine community
‘ sergeants belonging to the Court ”
it is not distinctly specified) were
increase.
By this last sumptuary statute,
(whether “at law” or “at arms,’
privileged to wear whatever
hoods they pleased, “for
the honour of the King and
the dignity of their station.”
Moreover, the Mayors of
London and of certain other
places were exempted from
any prohibition as to clothing,
and therefore might come out
as great swells as they chose,
or as their Mayoresses would
let them. Whether Sir
Richard Whittington took
advantage of this privilege
is a question we must leave
to antiquarians to settle; and
we fear it will not much
assist them in their labour,
if we bring before their notice
a curious old drawing, which
represents Sir Richard (who
then was simply Master
Dick) as he appeared when
sitting with crossed legs upon
a milestone, peeling a turnip
while he listened to the
pealing of Bow bells. The
picture is however worth
preserving in our Book, for it shows what sort of dress was worn in
boyhood at this period. Among other points of interest we may
especially point out the long points of the shoes: which remind us
of the formidable chaussure of the goblin who sat upon the tomb-
stone and kicked old Gabriel Grub.
MASTER DICK WHITTINGTON. FROM AN
AUTHENTIC PORTRAIT.
* This lettice, Cotgrave tells us, was a whitish greyish beast; but whether it be
counted now with the extinct animals we must leave Professor Owen to decide.
THE A. B. C. OF SPIRITUALISM.
It is a pity that the Spiritualists (at least for their own sake it is)
are not more reserved in the statements which they publish. They
might have many more disciples—or shall we call them dupes ?—if
they, did not themselves take such pains to repel them. But a
Spiritualist seldom shows his hand on paper without making clearly
manifest his mental imbecility; and the natural result of this unlucky
manifestation is, that nobody but fools will condescend to listen
to him.
To show what simpletons have lately assumed the name of Spiritual-
ists, we beg to call attention to a little book which has been written by
a certain Dr. Child, for the instruction of the children of the Spiritual-
ist faith. This “A B. Child, M.D.,” we learn, is one of the bright
stars whose radiance illumines the Banner of Light, a Yankee Spiritual-
ist paper which is said to have subscribers, and we presume therefore
readers, in our own enlightened country. What, a shining light is
Child, and how much good must be done to the Spiritualist cause by
the general diffusion of his literary beams, may perhaps be somewhat
judged from this brief extract from his book:—
“ What is a Lie ?—A Lie is true to the cause that produced it; so -what we call
a lie is a truth that exists in nature, just as real as is what we call a truth. The
cause of a lie exists in nature, the cause of a truth exists in nature, and the effect of
each cause is wrought out in nature. Nature is always true in her work ; so both a
truth and what we call a lie are lawful and right in the great plan of existence. A
lie is a truth intrinsically ; it holds a lawful plaoe in creation; it is a necessity.”
This extremely proper doctrine is verv fitly promulgated under such
a heading as ‘ Whatever is, is Right,' which Dr. Child has chosen for
the title of his book. We look upon it as a highly useful statement,
as it nicely lets the cat out of the Spiritualist bag, and by affirming
that a liar is a natural necessity, it shows us the professors of that
faith in their true light. If in the ethics of the Spiritualists a truth,
and “what we call a lie,” are in the great plan of existence alike
“lawful and right,” of course no Spiritualist would shrink from
trickery and fraud in order to encourage a belief in his false faith.
But there are far worse things than lying, which, according to this
Child, a person may at times be spirit-moved to do. Prefacing his
dictum by saying that “no commandment, either written or spoken,
ever yet had any influence upon the soul,” and that “ there is no such
thing as Spiritual culture coming from the teachings of another,” the
Doctor next informs us that, in Spiritualist ethics, killing is no murder,
or rather that murder is no killing of the soul: thus flatly contradicting
the Scriptural assertion which tells us that “the soul which sinneth,
it shall die: ”—
“ Murder has no influence upon the soul: it is a thing of the material world in its
influence. It has no influence upon spiritual existence, of which it is an effect. When
the murderer kills his brother, he strikes a blow that will paralyse every love of his
own earthly existence. Then the affections of his soul must cling to something ;
and if his love of earth becomes broken by the awful deed of murder, and the con-
sequent punishment that he meets, spiritual things are next grasped, and perhaps
sooner grasped for the commission of the deed. The murderer does his deeds in
darkness : be does not commit the deed with a view to advance the progress of his
soui. He is moved by an unseen and irresistible power to commit what seems to
us the ‘evil’ deed. Every murder that ever was committed has been inevitable:
in the bosom of nature has existence the lawful cause, of which murder has hem the
effect.”
We are informed that Dr. Child at present lives at Boston (in the
Shires, not in the States). For Boston his residence may ere long be
changed to Bedlam, if he goes on writing such insane stuff as this.
Were it not in sooth for its obvious insanity, such a doctrine as the
Doctor’s might entitle him quite fitly to a residence in Newgate, to
expiate his blasphemous contempt of God’s commandments, and his
wickedness in framing an excuse, if not indeed an incentive, for a
crime.
The extracts we have given, and others we might give, had we not
more respect for our readers than the Doctor has, form part of what
he flippantly has termed his “All Right Doctrine.” He has been
brought to a belief in it not by reason or by teaching, but by simple
intuition, and by spirit-revelation. Reason he regards as “an effect of
the soul that is allied to material philosophy, and with the material
things of earth will sometimes give place to the higher development of
intuition.” Truth, he deigns to tell us, “ is developed in the soul by
intuition always. The soul never did nor never can receive that which
to itself is a truth, from external teachings, from the school-house or
the meeting-house.” And so we are informed that—
“ Every real Spiritualist is a Spiritualist alone from intuition, not from external
evidence. Philosophy never made a Spiritualist, and never will.”
Really ? Doctor! Well, we own you do astonish us. To think now
that philosophy will never make a Spiritualist! Whoever would have
thought it! And conceive too what a bold asserter is the Doctor,
when he sweepingly affirms that a Spiritualist has never once been
found among the learned ranks of the philosophers, from Plato even
down to Punch !
As we began by saying, it is a pity (for themselves ; for others we
incline to regard it as a benefit) that the Spiritualist writers do not
take more pains to be a little less discordant in their theories, and a
little more discreet in revealing what their spirits (whether mixed or
neat) may move them to let out. A writer in the current number of
the Spiritual Magazine grandly talks of Spiritualism as “ an all-powerful
influence, which possesses the power to raise man, body, mind and
soul, to a higher position even whilst on earth, tiian poet ever con-
ceived, or any but a prophet ever hinted at.” How far this description
agrees with the “Ail Right Doctrine,” which Dr. A. B. Child puts
forth to us as being (if we may make this use of bis initials) the
A. B. C. of the Spiritualist faith, we leave to readers not so childish. as
the Doctor to decide. To our thinking the gallows. is the only “ high
position” that is likely to be reached by a believer in a doctrine which
excuses murder, justifies a lie, and would shut up as useless our
churches and our schools.
Sold.
In consequence of the failure of the Hops and the badness of the
Barley, the Brewers are notifying to their customers that the price of
Beer must be raised six shillings a barrel. Well, what joke is there in
that? Why, none. That’s just it. In fact it is no joke. Now then.
Shut up and sat upon, eh ?
HEARTLESS JEST.
A Learned Party has just issued a book on The Emotions and the
Will. Is not this reversing the natural order of things ? We thought
the Emotions depended on what the Will contained.
149
to revive them was in general a useless and unprofitable attempt.
Among other regulations it was now provided that nobody but ban-
nerets or men of high estate should wear cloth of gold, of crimson, or
of velvet, nor should they use the fur of ermine, of marten, or of
lettice,* nor wear long hanging sleeves, or gowns which touched the
ground. Four years afterwards it was ordained that no man, of what-
ever rank or wealth, should wear a gown or other garment that was
cut or slashed in pieces in the form of leaves or Tetters, under the
penalty of forfeiting the same; and it was ordered that the tailors
employed by such offenders should in future be imprisoned “ during
the king’s pleasure ” for abetting the offence. Should any sumptuary
laws be enacted in our time, we trust that this wise hint will not be
lost upon our senators. We think too that the penance might with
profit be extended, so that female culprits might also be subjected to
it. Were our milliners made liable to get a month’s hard labour for
sending out a dress of more than proper amplitude, we should soon
hear that wide petticoats were going out of fashion, and in proportion
as they lessened would the comfort of the masculine community
‘ sergeants belonging to the Court ”
it is not distinctly specified) were
increase.
By this last sumptuary statute,
(whether “at law” or “at arms,’
privileged to wear whatever
hoods they pleased, “for
the honour of the King and
the dignity of their station.”
Moreover, the Mayors of
London and of certain other
places were exempted from
any prohibition as to clothing,
and therefore might come out
as great swells as they chose,
or as their Mayoresses would
let them. Whether Sir
Richard Whittington took
advantage of this privilege
is a question we must leave
to antiquarians to settle; and
we fear it will not much
assist them in their labour,
if we bring before their notice
a curious old drawing, which
represents Sir Richard (who
then was simply Master
Dick) as he appeared when
sitting with crossed legs upon
a milestone, peeling a turnip
while he listened to the
pealing of Bow bells. The
picture is however worth
preserving in our Book, for it shows what sort of dress was worn in
boyhood at this period. Among other points of interest we may
especially point out the long points of the shoes: which remind us
of the formidable chaussure of the goblin who sat upon the tomb-
stone and kicked old Gabriel Grub.
MASTER DICK WHITTINGTON. FROM AN
AUTHENTIC PORTRAIT.
* This lettice, Cotgrave tells us, was a whitish greyish beast; but whether it be
counted now with the extinct animals we must leave Professor Owen to decide.
THE A. B. C. OF SPIRITUALISM.
It is a pity that the Spiritualists (at least for their own sake it is)
are not more reserved in the statements which they publish. They
might have many more disciples—or shall we call them dupes ?—if
they, did not themselves take such pains to repel them. But a
Spiritualist seldom shows his hand on paper without making clearly
manifest his mental imbecility; and the natural result of this unlucky
manifestation is, that nobody but fools will condescend to listen
to him.
To show what simpletons have lately assumed the name of Spiritual-
ists, we beg to call attention to a little book which has been written by
a certain Dr. Child, for the instruction of the children of the Spiritual-
ist faith. This “A B. Child, M.D.,” we learn, is one of the bright
stars whose radiance illumines the Banner of Light, a Yankee Spiritual-
ist paper which is said to have subscribers, and we presume therefore
readers, in our own enlightened country. What, a shining light is
Child, and how much good must be done to the Spiritualist cause by
the general diffusion of his literary beams, may perhaps be somewhat
judged from this brief extract from his book:—
“ What is a Lie ?—A Lie is true to the cause that produced it; so -what we call
a lie is a truth that exists in nature, just as real as is what we call a truth. The
cause of a lie exists in nature, the cause of a truth exists in nature, and the effect of
each cause is wrought out in nature. Nature is always true in her work ; so both a
truth and what we call a lie are lawful and right in the great plan of existence. A
lie is a truth intrinsically ; it holds a lawful plaoe in creation; it is a necessity.”
This extremely proper doctrine is verv fitly promulgated under such
a heading as ‘ Whatever is, is Right,' which Dr. Child has chosen for
the title of his book. We look upon it as a highly useful statement,
as it nicely lets the cat out of the Spiritualist bag, and by affirming
that a liar is a natural necessity, it shows us the professors of that
faith in their true light. If in the ethics of the Spiritualists a truth,
and “what we call a lie,” are in the great plan of existence alike
“lawful and right,” of course no Spiritualist would shrink from
trickery and fraud in order to encourage a belief in his false faith.
But there are far worse things than lying, which, according to this
Child, a person may at times be spirit-moved to do. Prefacing his
dictum by saying that “no commandment, either written or spoken,
ever yet had any influence upon the soul,” and that “ there is no such
thing as Spiritual culture coming from the teachings of another,” the
Doctor next informs us that, in Spiritualist ethics, killing is no murder,
or rather that murder is no killing of the soul: thus flatly contradicting
the Scriptural assertion which tells us that “the soul which sinneth,
it shall die: ”—
“ Murder has no influence upon the soul: it is a thing of the material world in its
influence. It has no influence upon spiritual existence, of which it is an effect. When
the murderer kills his brother, he strikes a blow that will paralyse every love of his
own earthly existence. Then the affections of his soul must cling to something ;
and if his love of earth becomes broken by the awful deed of murder, and the con-
sequent punishment that he meets, spiritual things are next grasped, and perhaps
sooner grasped for the commission of the deed. The murderer does his deeds in
darkness : be does not commit the deed with a view to advance the progress of his
soui. He is moved by an unseen and irresistible power to commit what seems to
us the ‘evil’ deed. Every murder that ever was committed has been inevitable:
in the bosom of nature has existence the lawful cause, of which murder has hem the
effect.”
We are informed that Dr. Child at present lives at Boston (in the
Shires, not in the States). For Boston his residence may ere long be
changed to Bedlam, if he goes on writing such insane stuff as this.
Were it not in sooth for its obvious insanity, such a doctrine as the
Doctor’s might entitle him quite fitly to a residence in Newgate, to
expiate his blasphemous contempt of God’s commandments, and his
wickedness in framing an excuse, if not indeed an incentive, for a
crime.
The extracts we have given, and others we might give, had we not
more respect for our readers than the Doctor has, form part of what
he flippantly has termed his “All Right Doctrine.” He has been
brought to a belief in it not by reason or by teaching, but by simple
intuition, and by spirit-revelation. Reason he regards as “an effect of
the soul that is allied to material philosophy, and with the material
things of earth will sometimes give place to the higher development of
intuition.” Truth, he deigns to tell us, “ is developed in the soul by
intuition always. The soul never did nor never can receive that which
to itself is a truth, from external teachings, from the school-house or
the meeting-house.” And so we are informed that—
“ Every real Spiritualist is a Spiritualist alone from intuition, not from external
evidence. Philosophy never made a Spiritualist, and never will.”
Really ? Doctor! Well, we own you do astonish us. To think now
that philosophy will never make a Spiritualist! Whoever would have
thought it! And conceive too what a bold asserter is the Doctor,
when he sweepingly affirms that a Spiritualist has never once been
found among the learned ranks of the philosophers, from Plato even
down to Punch !
As we began by saying, it is a pity (for themselves ; for others we
incline to regard it as a benefit) that the Spiritualist writers do not
take more pains to be a little less discordant in their theories, and a
little more discreet in revealing what their spirits (whether mixed or
neat) may move them to let out. A writer in the current number of
the Spiritual Magazine grandly talks of Spiritualism as “ an all-powerful
influence, which possesses the power to raise man, body, mind and
soul, to a higher position even whilst on earth, tiian poet ever con-
ceived, or any but a prophet ever hinted at.” How far this description
agrees with the “Ail Right Doctrine,” which Dr. A. B. Child puts
forth to us as being (if we may make this use of bis initials) the
A. B. C. of the Spiritualist faith, we leave to readers not so childish. as
the Doctor to decide. To our thinking the gallows. is the only “ high
position” that is likely to be reached by a believer in a doctrine which
excuses murder, justifies a lie, and would shut up as useless our
churches and our schools.
Sold.
In consequence of the failure of the Hops and the badness of the
Barley, the Brewers are notifying to their customers that the price of
Beer must be raised six shillings a barrel. Well, what joke is there in
that? Why, none. That’s just it. In fact it is no joke. Now then.
Shut up and sat upon, eh ?
HEARTLESS JEST.
A Learned Party has just issued a book on The Emotions and the
Will. Is not this reversing the natural order of things ? We thought
the Emotions depended on what the Will contained.