DOI Heft:
March 16, 1861
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16867#0115
March 16, 1861.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
101
SHOP !
‘ ‘ How buck an Oudcli, by Tear ? ”
Sill G. BOYYYER’S GAMMON.
“ As to Garibaldi, he was a gallant soldier, and throughout
these transactions had shown himself single-minded, having at
last returned to Caprera, as poor as when lie left it.”—(Sir G.
Bowyer—Gammon ! Laughter.)—Debate in the House of Commons,
Thursday, March 7.
A Eqeman of the Pope scorn pdf,
Aud turn his back on Mammon !
Not plunder to enrich himself ! —
Weil Bowier may cry “ Gammon ! ”
That faithful son of Holy Church,
O’er Papal wrongs still grieving,
Has other matters to employ
His rare powers of believing.
He can believe the rule of Rome
In Temporal things a blessing :
He can believe it’s good for sheep,
To welcome wolves’ caressing:
Believe that Pio Nono’s wise.
That Antonelli’s truthful;
That Naples sighs to welcome back
Her Francis, meek and ruthful;
That Roman freedom is a fact,
And Naples’fetters fiction:
That being gagged and caged and whacked.
Is Papal benediction;
Beliefs like these—not taking count
Of feats by saints and martyrs,
Wrought to force faith on Heretics,
Jews, Xnildels, and Tartars :
Saint Januarius’s blood,
Loretto’s flying mansion—
Must needs tax gullet of belief
Whatever its expansion !
That a poor gullet so abused,
Such mouthfuls forced to swallow,
Shnuid close ’gainst simple truth is what
We might expect to follow
The juggler who bolts swords may well
Of sore throat be complaining—
Nothing like swallowing camels,
At gnats to set one straining.
A BELLOW POR A PHOTOGRAPH.
A Photographer might have obtained a fine portrait of a hypocrite
by taking the likeness of the author of the subjoined letter as he
appeared in the act of writing it:—
“ To the Editor of the ‘ Morning Post.’ ”
“ Sir,—It may be doubtful whether it is expedient to take legal steps against the
essayists, considering the delays, difficulties, and expense of such, proceedings , out
there can be no doubt at all that, as one of the authors of this book, which has been
condemned by the unanimous voice of all the Bishops as opposed to the doctrines of
the Church of England, is one of Her. Majesty’s Chaplains, that it is the duty of
the responsible Ministers of the Crown to recommend Her Majesty, as head of the
Church, to remove this author, Dr. Temple, from that office and dignity.
“ I am, Sir, yours obediently,
“ University Club, March 4.” “ A Lay Christian.”
There can be no doubt that Dr. Temple is the author of a very
objectionable article. His Essay on The Education of the World is at
once imaginative and prosy. What worse could be said of any sermon?
Indeed this Essay was originally a sermon. As such, says thzSaturday
Review, “it was actually preached, without giving the slightest offence,
before the University of Oxford.” The University of Oxford can
stand a speculative discourse of no practical tendency and no theo-
retical importance. _ So, of course that learned body could see no offence
in the sermon which Dr. Temple preached, and has since published,
on the education of the world. There was no offence whatever in it
beyond the demerits of immateriality, prolixity, and dryness. It con-
tains no poison—except somewhat which partakes of the nature of
opium, but is not so strong—say, as it were, syrup of poppies. Gentle
dulness would have admired it had it been published in a separate
form; gentle dulness would have liked this serious treatise just as,
conversely, gentle dulness ever loves a joke. Doubtless many a
Christian Young Man’s Association, taking the abovenamed Essay by
itself, would have listened to it as a lecture, or read it amongst them-
selves, for mutual improvement, with great delight, and a sense at
least of considerable edification.
How then can “ A Lay Christian,” or any other Christian, request
the Government to dismiss Dr. Temple from the post of Her
Majesty’s Chaplain? It seems impossible to say. Private and per-
sonal motive, vindictive feeling, might prompt such a request on the
part of an enemy of Dr. Temple’s ; somebody who is no Christian at
all. Irate hypocrisy might inspire a contemptible snob with the sug-
gestion of arbitrarily cashiering the victim of an accusation which it
is impossible legally to sustain. Actuated by these sentiments, a mean
malignant fellow might be capable of sneaking into a corner of the
University Club, and there writing the letter to which these observa-
tions are annexed. As that letter is anonymous, it is the greater pity
that a photograph was not taken of its author whilst engaged in its
composition. For a photograph of that individual could possibly have
been taken, although the despicable humbug was working to injure
Dr. Temple in the dark.
A Rash Assertion.
The Tablet says that the King oe Naples is suffering punishment
for the sins committed by his ancestors in contending with the Jesuits
and withstanding the Pope. Of course the Tablet knows that appa-
rently Francis the Second lost his crown in consequence of having
pursued a policy too extremely the reverse of anti-Jesuitical and anti-
Popish. The proximate cause of his deposition was his subservience
to the priesthood and the papacy. The successors of heretical sove-
reigns are not likely to be encouraged by the example of the King or
Naples to return to obedience to the Holy See. It would be wise to
be quite certain that Francis is suffering for the sins which he has
renounced before making the assertion that such is the case, an
assertion which if incorrect is also injudicious.
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
101
SHOP !
‘ ‘ How buck an Oudcli, by Tear ? ”
Sill G. BOYYYER’S GAMMON.
“ As to Garibaldi, he was a gallant soldier, and throughout
these transactions had shown himself single-minded, having at
last returned to Caprera, as poor as when lie left it.”—(Sir G.
Bowyer—Gammon ! Laughter.)—Debate in the House of Commons,
Thursday, March 7.
A Eqeman of the Pope scorn pdf,
Aud turn his back on Mammon !
Not plunder to enrich himself ! —
Weil Bowier may cry “ Gammon ! ”
That faithful son of Holy Church,
O’er Papal wrongs still grieving,
Has other matters to employ
His rare powers of believing.
He can believe the rule of Rome
In Temporal things a blessing :
He can believe it’s good for sheep,
To welcome wolves’ caressing:
Believe that Pio Nono’s wise.
That Antonelli’s truthful;
That Naples sighs to welcome back
Her Francis, meek and ruthful;
That Roman freedom is a fact,
And Naples’fetters fiction:
That being gagged and caged and whacked.
Is Papal benediction;
Beliefs like these—not taking count
Of feats by saints and martyrs,
Wrought to force faith on Heretics,
Jews, Xnildels, and Tartars :
Saint Januarius’s blood,
Loretto’s flying mansion—
Must needs tax gullet of belief
Whatever its expansion !
That a poor gullet so abused,
Such mouthfuls forced to swallow,
Shnuid close ’gainst simple truth is what
We might expect to follow
The juggler who bolts swords may well
Of sore throat be complaining—
Nothing like swallowing camels,
At gnats to set one straining.
A BELLOW POR A PHOTOGRAPH.
A Photographer might have obtained a fine portrait of a hypocrite
by taking the likeness of the author of the subjoined letter as he
appeared in the act of writing it:—
“ To the Editor of the ‘ Morning Post.’ ”
“ Sir,—It may be doubtful whether it is expedient to take legal steps against the
essayists, considering the delays, difficulties, and expense of such, proceedings , out
there can be no doubt at all that, as one of the authors of this book, which has been
condemned by the unanimous voice of all the Bishops as opposed to the doctrines of
the Church of England, is one of Her. Majesty’s Chaplains, that it is the duty of
the responsible Ministers of the Crown to recommend Her Majesty, as head of the
Church, to remove this author, Dr. Temple, from that office and dignity.
“ I am, Sir, yours obediently,
“ University Club, March 4.” “ A Lay Christian.”
There can be no doubt that Dr. Temple is the author of a very
objectionable article. His Essay on The Education of the World is at
once imaginative and prosy. What worse could be said of any sermon?
Indeed this Essay was originally a sermon. As such, says thzSaturday
Review, “it was actually preached, without giving the slightest offence,
before the University of Oxford.” The University of Oxford can
stand a speculative discourse of no practical tendency and no theo-
retical importance. _ So, of course that learned body could see no offence
in the sermon which Dr. Temple preached, and has since published,
on the education of the world. There was no offence whatever in it
beyond the demerits of immateriality, prolixity, and dryness. It con-
tains no poison—except somewhat which partakes of the nature of
opium, but is not so strong—say, as it were, syrup of poppies. Gentle
dulness would have admired it had it been published in a separate
form; gentle dulness would have liked this serious treatise just as,
conversely, gentle dulness ever loves a joke. Doubtless many a
Christian Young Man’s Association, taking the abovenamed Essay by
itself, would have listened to it as a lecture, or read it amongst them-
selves, for mutual improvement, with great delight, and a sense at
least of considerable edification.
How then can “ A Lay Christian,” or any other Christian, request
the Government to dismiss Dr. Temple from the post of Her
Majesty’s Chaplain? It seems impossible to say. Private and per-
sonal motive, vindictive feeling, might prompt such a request on the
part of an enemy of Dr. Temple’s ; somebody who is no Christian at
all. Irate hypocrisy might inspire a contemptible snob with the sug-
gestion of arbitrarily cashiering the victim of an accusation which it
is impossible legally to sustain. Actuated by these sentiments, a mean
malignant fellow might be capable of sneaking into a corner of the
University Club, and there writing the letter to which these observa-
tions are annexed. As that letter is anonymous, it is the greater pity
that a photograph was not taken of its author whilst engaged in its
composition. For a photograph of that individual could possibly have
been taken, although the despicable humbug was working to injure
Dr. Temple in the dark.
A Rash Assertion.
The Tablet says that the King oe Naples is suffering punishment
for the sins committed by his ancestors in contending with the Jesuits
and withstanding the Pope. Of course the Tablet knows that appa-
rently Francis the Second lost his crown in consequence of having
pursued a policy too extremely the reverse of anti-Jesuitical and anti-
Popish. The proximate cause of his deposition was his subservience
to the priesthood and the papacy. The successors of heretical sove-
reigns are not likely to be encouraged by the example of the King or
Naples to return to obedience to the Holy See. It would be wise to
be quite certain that Francis is suffering for the sins which he has
renounced before making the assertion that such is the case, an
assertion which if incorrect is also injudicious.