DOI Heft:
May 25, 1861
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16867#0217
May 25, 18G1.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
20$
Touchstone.
Thou art in a parlous stats, Shepherd."
As You Lite It.
ODE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
0 Jonathan and Jefferson,
Come listen to my song;
1 can’t, decide, my word upon,
Which of you is most, wrong.
I do declare I am afraid
To say which worse behaves,
The North, imposing bonds on Trade,
Or South, that Man enslaves.
And here you are about to fight,
And wage intestine war,
Not, either of you in the right:
What simpletons you are!
Too late your madness you will see,
And when your passion cools,
“ Snakes ! ” you will bellow, “ How could we
Have been such ’tarnal fools ! ”
One thing is certain; that if you
Blow out each other’s brains,
’Twill be apparent what a few
Each blockhead’s skull contains.
You’ll have just nothing for your cost.
To show, when all is done.
Greatness and glory you ’ll have lost;
And not a dollar won.
Oh, joined to us by blood, and by
'['lie bond of kindred speech,
And further, by the special tie
Of slang, bound each to each,
All-fired gonies, softhorn’d pair,
Each other will you lick?
You everlastin’ dolts, forbear !
Throw down your arms right slick.
You’ll chaw each other up, you two.
Like those Kilkenny cats,
When they had better things to do.
Improvin’ off the rats.
Now come, shake hands, together jog
On friendly yet once more ;
Whip one another not,: and flog
Creation, as before!
PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.
May 13th, Monday. The Lords were engaged upon a subject of
course utterly unworthy to occupy the time of well-dressed gentltmen
who read Horace, back Diophantus, and applaud Grisi, but which
somehow did manage to interest them for a good while. Lord
Shaftesbury is exceedingly irate at that part of the Report of the
Education Commissioners which refers to the Ragged Schools, and
lo-night he expressed his wrath in very strong language. He described
the Report as untrue, unfair, and ungenerous. The Education Com-
missioners do not think the Ragged Schools sufficiently sound in
theory or advantageous in practice to entitle them to Government, aid.
The Commissioners object to the want of regularity and discipline
in the Schools and to the recognition of habitual dirtiness as a con-
dition to be tolerated in a pupil. They also urge that the schools
draw away children from better schools, where the system is more
rigid. Lord Shaftesbury replies, that we are not to wait for a
perfect system before doing anything, but are to try to do our best,
that the poor regard these schools as a recognition of their class, that
in two years people of “the poorer sort” have contributed nearly
£250,000 for the schools, that the influence of the school children upon
their parents is often very beneficial, and that the great hindrance to
doing much more good is the horrible Home of the very poor. He did
not want Government money, but considered that the schools had a
perfect right to it. He injured a good cause by intemperate language,
and made, more suo, reference to the Almighty, and talked of protests
against Vile Slanders. The Colonial Secretary, on the part of the
'Commissioners, said that Lord Shaftesbury was exciting himself
•needlessly, and that he ought not to use before the Lords the
“grandiose” style that suited Exeter Hall. He did not set up like
Lord Shaftesbury a “hyper-claim to infallibility,” but considered the
great National Schools, on which millions were spent, of far more im-
portance than these Ragged Schools. And he added that these
schools did claim Government money, and Lord Shaftesbury was
not entitled to be their mouthpiece.
Mr. Roebuck had been informed and believed that in the
minority against the Repeal of the Paper Duty, there appeared a
gentleman who was not mentally qualified to take part in any business
at all. The Member for Sheffield brought the subject before the
House, and an explanation of the case was offered by a friend
of the individual in question. It, was stated that the mind of
that person had been perturbed, and that he had voluntarily retired to
an asylum, into which he could not be received until two medical men
had given a certificate couched in language so strong as perfectly to
justify inquiry whether the document were a formality or a represen-
tation of facts. But it was also stated that the Member alluded to was
placed under no restraint, and, choosing to come from the asylum to
t,he House, did so, conversed rationally, voted, and went away quietly.
Mr. Punch, having recorded the circumstances, leaves an unpleasant
subject, with the single remark that though, as it happened, the regis-
tration of the vote was of no consequence, it will be well that whippers-
in on both sides use sound discretion when any similar case again
arises. In these days people are not so reverent as of old, and cause
for a certain kind of talk should be avoided. The rule is not now
quicquid delirant * * * plectuntur Achivi, in regard to Kings, Lords, or
Commons.
Budget again; Mr. Macdonogh, Conservative-lawyer, Member for
Sligo, delivered his maiden speech against the annexing the repeal of
the Paper Duty to the Budget. Sir James Graham came out
vigorously on the other side, and told the Opposition that though the
cry “Tea against Paper” would be a good one with the masses, the cry
of “ Lords against Commons ” might not be one which the Conservative
party would be so happy to raise. This significant hint in the old
Graham manner—brought up Lord John Manners, who denounced
the One Bill device as cowardly, and after some more debating, and a
smart address from Mr. Whiteside, who argued against the validity
of the marriage between repeal and supply, a spirited reply from Lord
John Russell, and some more petulant nonsense from Lord Robert
Cecil, there was a struggle on the question of adjournment, which
was opposed by the Government, but sternly demanded by Mr.
Disraeli. A couple of divisions, 247 to 164, and 233 to 145, against,
adjournment, and then, the motion being again made, Lord Palmer-
ston laughingly seconded it.
Tuesday. Lord Brougham elicited from Lord Wodehouse the in-
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
20$
Touchstone.
Thou art in a parlous stats, Shepherd."
As You Lite It.
ODE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
0 Jonathan and Jefferson,
Come listen to my song;
1 can’t, decide, my word upon,
Which of you is most, wrong.
I do declare I am afraid
To say which worse behaves,
The North, imposing bonds on Trade,
Or South, that Man enslaves.
And here you are about to fight,
And wage intestine war,
Not, either of you in the right:
What simpletons you are!
Too late your madness you will see,
And when your passion cools,
“ Snakes ! ” you will bellow, “ How could we
Have been such ’tarnal fools ! ”
One thing is certain; that if you
Blow out each other’s brains,
’Twill be apparent what a few
Each blockhead’s skull contains.
You’ll have just nothing for your cost.
To show, when all is done.
Greatness and glory you ’ll have lost;
And not a dollar won.
Oh, joined to us by blood, and by
'['lie bond of kindred speech,
And further, by the special tie
Of slang, bound each to each,
All-fired gonies, softhorn’d pair,
Each other will you lick?
You everlastin’ dolts, forbear !
Throw down your arms right slick.
You’ll chaw each other up, you two.
Like those Kilkenny cats,
When they had better things to do.
Improvin’ off the rats.
Now come, shake hands, together jog
On friendly yet once more ;
Whip one another not,: and flog
Creation, as before!
PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.
May 13th, Monday. The Lords were engaged upon a subject of
course utterly unworthy to occupy the time of well-dressed gentltmen
who read Horace, back Diophantus, and applaud Grisi, but which
somehow did manage to interest them for a good while. Lord
Shaftesbury is exceedingly irate at that part of the Report of the
Education Commissioners which refers to the Ragged Schools, and
lo-night he expressed his wrath in very strong language. He described
the Report as untrue, unfair, and ungenerous. The Education Com-
missioners do not think the Ragged Schools sufficiently sound in
theory or advantageous in practice to entitle them to Government, aid.
The Commissioners object to the want of regularity and discipline
in the Schools and to the recognition of habitual dirtiness as a con-
dition to be tolerated in a pupil. They also urge that the schools
draw away children from better schools, where the system is more
rigid. Lord Shaftesbury replies, that we are not to wait for a
perfect system before doing anything, but are to try to do our best,
that the poor regard these schools as a recognition of their class, that
in two years people of “the poorer sort” have contributed nearly
£250,000 for the schools, that the influence of the school children upon
their parents is often very beneficial, and that the great hindrance to
doing much more good is the horrible Home of the very poor. He did
not want Government money, but considered that the schools had a
perfect right to it. He injured a good cause by intemperate language,
and made, more suo, reference to the Almighty, and talked of protests
against Vile Slanders. The Colonial Secretary, on the part of the
'Commissioners, said that Lord Shaftesbury was exciting himself
•needlessly, and that he ought not to use before the Lords the
“grandiose” style that suited Exeter Hall. He did not set up like
Lord Shaftesbury a “hyper-claim to infallibility,” but considered the
great National Schools, on which millions were spent, of far more im-
portance than these Ragged Schools. And he added that these
schools did claim Government money, and Lord Shaftesbury was
not entitled to be their mouthpiece.
Mr. Roebuck had been informed and believed that in the
minority against the Repeal of the Paper Duty, there appeared a
gentleman who was not mentally qualified to take part in any business
at all. The Member for Sheffield brought the subject before the
House, and an explanation of the case was offered by a friend
of the individual in question. It, was stated that the mind of
that person had been perturbed, and that he had voluntarily retired to
an asylum, into which he could not be received until two medical men
had given a certificate couched in language so strong as perfectly to
justify inquiry whether the document were a formality or a represen-
tation of facts. But it was also stated that the Member alluded to was
placed under no restraint, and, choosing to come from the asylum to
t,he House, did so, conversed rationally, voted, and went away quietly.
Mr. Punch, having recorded the circumstances, leaves an unpleasant
subject, with the single remark that though, as it happened, the regis-
tration of the vote was of no consequence, it will be well that whippers-
in on both sides use sound discretion when any similar case again
arises. In these days people are not so reverent as of old, and cause
for a certain kind of talk should be avoided. The rule is not now
quicquid delirant * * * plectuntur Achivi, in regard to Kings, Lords, or
Commons.
Budget again; Mr. Macdonogh, Conservative-lawyer, Member for
Sligo, delivered his maiden speech against the annexing the repeal of
the Paper Duty to the Budget. Sir James Graham came out
vigorously on the other side, and told the Opposition that though the
cry “Tea against Paper” would be a good one with the masses, the cry
of “ Lords against Commons ” might not be one which the Conservative
party would be so happy to raise. This significant hint in the old
Graham manner—brought up Lord John Manners, who denounced
the One Bill device as cowardly, and after some more debating, and a
smart address from Mr. Whiteside, who argued against the validity
of the marriage between repeal and supply, a spirited reply from Lord
John Russell, and some more petulant nonsense from Lord Robert
Cecil, there was a struggle on the question of adjournment, which
was opposed by the Government, but sternly demanded by Mr.
Disraeli. A couple of divisions, 247 to 164, and 233 to 145, against,
adjournment, and then, the motion being again made, Lord Palmer-
ston laughingly seconded it.
Tuesday. Lord Brougham elicited from Lord Wodehouse the in-