DOI Heft:
March 15, 1862
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16869#0116
108
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[March 15, 1862.
Artist. “ My big Picture, ? I haven't painted in the two principal figures yet; because I can't
find anybody-pretty enough to sit for them. Ah ! Miss Mary, if I could only induce you just to—”
Miss Bridget. “ Oh! my Dear Mr. M‘Gilp we should both be only too delighted ! When shall we
come to your studio ? Hovj shall we dress ? and what style of coiffure f ”
[Now, what is a fellow to say in such a fix as this ?
OSBORNE ON ARMY CLOTHEERS.
Oh ! poor Bernal Osborne, oh !
Durst you touch the theme of clo’ ?
Government, you, goose of railers.
Twit with turning army tailors :
You of all men, to defame them,
“ Monster Moses and Sons ” name them !
Palmerston a monster Moses ?
What if we compare your noses ?
’Mongst the Sons of Moses who
Has a brother, if not you ?
But, perhaps you mean, those others
Counterfeit your Sire and Brothers. .
You then, Bernal, may we term
Sleeping partner in the Firm ?
Deem unworthy personation,
Drew forth your denunciation
Of the rival Shop ?—and learn
That it’s not “ the same Concern ? ”
FEARFUL RETRIBUTION.
On Thursday last we read that an order
for release from custody was allowed by Mr.
Commissioner Evans to a Bankrupt, who
was described as a “ Manufacturer of Crino-
line.” This is a painful proof, in Bank-
ruptcy, as well as in Morality, of what a
perverse indulgence in confirmed bad habits
will ultimately lead a man to. He cannot
long escape his doom. He is sur.e to be caged
at last. In other words, the Bankrupt above
punished, on whose melancholy fate we will not
be too severe, is, in consequence of his crino-
linear propensities, a living example, with the
slight variation of one bar, of the old distich:—
“ He vot steels vot isn't his'n,
Ven he’s cotched, he goes to pris’n ! ’
THE HAPPIEST OF MEN!
We copy the subjoined letter of introduction from the French papers.
It certainly deserves being included among the choicest belles-lettres of
France
My Dear Victor-Emmanuel,
“ Receive Dumas. He is my Mend—as well as yours,
{The above is an exact Copy.
‘ Garibaldi.’’
■ Alexandre Dumas.)"
Happy Dumas : Not only does he associate with kings, but with
great men like Garibaldi. The latter takes an honest pride in calling
him his “ friend.” It must be a proud title for the same man to be
called “ the author of Monte Christo, and the friend of Garibaldi.”
However, such an accumulation of honours, under which any other
pair of shoulders, less Atlas-like, would be weighed down to the earth,
does not make Alexandre in the least proud, and, in giving a friend a
facsimile of the above letter, he takes particular care to testify, for fear
of the world, or posterity, being deceived, that it is “ an exact copy.”
And the world does now know, as posterity will, that Dumas is
Garibaldi’s friend, Yictor-Emmanuel’s friend, everybody’s friend,
in short: of everybody, at least, who has read his charming books.
He is, in truth, everybody’s friend, even including the bailiffs, for they
seem to run after him more than any one else. Indeed, the attentions
of the latter almost take the form of persecutions. In spite of the
huissiers, however, Dumas is the happiest of men. Not a day passes,
but some paper says something about him. He is uniformly successful
in making people talk about him. It is true that it is not always praise
that is bandied about in public in connection with his name; it is
equally true that, when his character is canvassed in print, it is not
always sugar that is sprinkled over it. But what of that ? is he not
perpetually talked about ? and do we not know that to be perpetually
talked about is considered in France the very greatest height of human
happiness attainable in this world ?
Yes, Alexandre, thou art the happiest of men. The above letter is
for thee a sure passport to Fame, and fortunately thy modesty does not
prevent thee showing it. Great genius, we envy thee! Indeed, so
Seat is our envy, that we feel prompted to borrow the words of
iogenes, and, basking in the blaze of thy world-illmnining splen-
dour, reverently to exclaim: “ If we were not Punch, we would be
Alexander!”
HESITATION IN A GENTLEMAN’S SPEECH.
The proceedings in the Court Martial which has been held at Dublin
on Captain Robertson of the Fourth Dragoon Guards, on a charge
which, in substance though not in terms, is that of not having promptly
enough challenged a person who had insulted him to fight a duel, have
been reported at full length in the Morning Post. The subjoined
extract from that journal is an example of faithful reporting which we
should like to see generally followed. A “ Round Robin,” having for
its object the removal of Captain Robertson, signed by the officers
of the regiment, and addressed to the Colonel, is the document alluded
to in the .President’s question, addressed to the witness. Colonel
Bentinck himself:—
“ By ‘unanimous,’ did you mean that Lieutenant Rintoul ought to get the
other officers to sign it, or did you mean that it would be no use unless it were
unanimous ?
“ Witness. I have only a faint recollection of speaking to Lieutenant Rintoul
on the subject, and to the best of my belief my idea at that time was tbat it ought
to be—ab—ah—unanimous, in fact, that—ah—ah—every officer ought to sign it.”
Colonel Bentinck’s explanation of the word unanimous as
applied to the signature of a document, reminds one of that which
Bardolph volunteered to give of the word accommodate. “ Unanimous,
in fact, that—ah—ah—every officer ought to sign it ” is a definition as
lucid as the gallant Colonel could have pronounced if he had clothed it
in the very words of Falstaff’s red-nosed follower: —
“Unanimous; That is, when officers are, as they say, unanimous; or, when
officers are,—being—whereby—they may be thought to be unanimous ; which is an
excellent thing.”
What a pity it is that Parliamentary speeches cannot be taken down
by a sort of phonography, so that they might be published in the papers,
and read as they were actually spoken ! If Honourable Members knew
that their eloquence would be faithfully reproduced , next^ morning for
the amusement, perhaps, as much as for the instruction of the British
public, they would soon unlearn their hums and haws and unnecessary
aspirates, and would learn to sound the letter h in its place.
Dry debates and proceedings are enlivened for the reader by being
reported with the literal fidelity above instanced, preserving; the gro-
tesque character of a reply which, pruned of redundances, might have
been a straightforward answer to a simple question, and not at all
diverting, but which, as it stands, comprises and combines the fun of
Bardolph and Lord Bundreary,.
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
[March 15, 1862.
Artist. “ My big Picture, ? I haven't painted in the two principal figures yet; because I can't
find anybody-pretty enough to sit for them. Ah ! Miss Mary, if I could only induce you just to—”
Miss Bridget. “ Oh! my Dear Mr. M‘Gilp we should both be only too delighted ! When shall we
come to your studio ? Hovj shall we dress ? and what style of coiffure f ”
[Now, what is a fellow to say in such a fix as this ?
OSBORNE ON ARMY CLOTHEERS.
Oh ! poor Bernal Osborne, oh !
Durst you touch the theme of clo’ ?
Government, you, goose of railers.
Twit with turning army tailors :
You of all men, to defame them,
“ Monster Moses and Sons ” name them !
Palmerston a monster Moses ?
What if we compare your noses ?
’Mongst the Sons of Moses who
Has a brother, if not you ?
But, perhaps you mean, those others
Counterfeit your Sire and Brothers. .
You then, Bernal, may we term
Sleeping partner in the Firm ?
Deem unworthy personation,
Drew forth your denunciation
Of the rival Shop ?—and learn
That it’s not “ the same Concern ? ”
FEARFUL RETRIBUTION.
On Thursday last we read that an order
for release from custody was allowed by Mr.
Commissioner Evans to a Bankrupt, who
was described as a “ Manufacturer of Crino-
line.” This is a painful proof, in Bank-
ruptcy, as well as in Morality, of what a
perverse indulgence in confirmed bad habits
will ultimately lead a man to. He cannot
long escape his doom. He is sur.e to be caged
at last. In other words, the Bankrupt above
punished, on whose melancholy fate we will not
be too severe, is, in consequence of his crino-
linear propensities, a living example, with the
slight variation of one bar, of the old distich:—
“ He vot steels vot isn't his'n,
Ven he’s cotched, he goes to pris’n ! ’
THE HAPPIEST OF MEN!
We copy the subjoined letter of introduction from the French papers.
It certainly deserves being included among the choicest belles-lettres of
France
My Dear Victor-Emmanuel,
“ Receive Dumas. He is my Mend—as well as yours,
{The above is an exact Copy.
‘ Garibaldi.’’
■ Alexandre Dumas.)"
Happy Dumas : Not only does he associate with kings, but with
great men like Garibaldi. The latter takes an honest pride in calling
him his “ friend.” It must be a proud title for the same man to be
called “ the author of Monte Christo, and the friend of Garibaldi.”
However, such an accumulation of honours, under which any other
pair of shoulders, less Atlas-like, would be weighed down to the earth,
does not make Alexandre in the least proud, and, in giving a friend a
facsimile of the above letter, he takes particular care to testify, for fear
of the world, or posterity, being deceived, that it is “ an exact copy.”
And the world does now know, as posterity will, that Dumas is
Garibaldi’s friend, Yictor-Emmanuel’s friend, everybody’s friend,
in short: of everybody, at least, who has read his charming books.
He is, in truth, everybody’s friend, even including the bailiffs, for they
seem to run after him more than any one else. Indeed, the attentions
of the latter almost take the form of persecutions. In spite of the
huissiers, however, Dumas is the happiest of men. Not a day passes,
but some paper says something about him. He is uniformly successful
in making people talk about him. It is true that it is not always praise
that is bandied about in public in connection with his name; it is
equally true that, when his character is canvassed in print, it is not
always sugar that is sprinkled over it. But what of that ? is he not
perpetually talked about ? and do we not know that to be perpetually
talked about is considered in France the very greatest height of human
happiness attainable in this world ?
Yes, Alexandre, thou art the happiest of men. The above letter is
for thee a sure passport to Fame, and fortunately thy modesty does not
prevent thee showing it. Great genius, we envy thee! Indeed, so
Seat is our envy, that we feel prompted to borrow the words of
iogenes, and, basking in the blaze of thy world-illmnining splen-
dour, reverently to exclaim: “ If we were not Punch, we would be
Alexander!”
HESITATION IN A GENTLEMAN’S SPEECH.
The proceedings in the Court Martial which has been held at Dublin
on Captain Robertson of the Fourth Dragoon Guards, on a charge
which, in substance though not in terms, is that of not having promptly
enough challenged a person who had insulted him to fight a duel, have
been reported at full length in the Morning Post. The subjoined
extract from that journal is an example of faithful reporting which we
should like to see generally followed. A “ Round Robin,” having for
its object the removal of Captain Robertson, signed by the officers
of the regiment, and addressed to the Colonel, is the document alluded
to in the .President’s question, addressed to the witness. Colonel
Bentinck himself:—
“ By ‘unanimous,’ did you mean that Lieutenant Rintoul ought to get the
other officers to sign it, or did you mean that it would be no use unless it were
unanimous ?
“ Witness. I have only a faint recollection of speaking to Lieutenant Rintoul
on the subject, and to the best of my belief my idea at that time was tbat it ought
to be—ab—ah—unanimous, in fact, that—ah—ah—every officer ought to sign it.”
Colonel Bentinck’s explanation of the word unanimous as
applied to the signature of a document, reminds one of that which
Bardolph volunteered to give of the word accommodate. “ Unanimous,
in fact, that—ah—ah—every officer ought to sign it ” is a definition as
lucid as the gallant Colonel could have pronounced if he had clothed it
in the very words of Falstaff’s red-nosed follower: —
“Unanimous; That is, when officers are, as they say, unanimous; or, when
officers are,—being—whereby—they may be thought to be unanimous ; which is an
excellent thing.”
What a pity it is that Parliamentary speeches cannot be taken down
by a sort of phonography, so that they might be published in the papers,
and read as they were actually spoken ! If Honourable Members knew
that their eloquence would be faithfully reproduced , next^ morning for
the amusement, perhaps, as much as for the instruction of the British
public, they would soon unlearn their hums and haws and unnecessary
aspirates, and would learn to sound the letter h in its place.
Dry debates and proceedings are enlivened for the reader by being
reported with the literal fidelity above instanced, preserving; the gro-
tesque character of a reply which, pruned of redundances, might have
been a straightforward answer to a simple question, and not at all
diverting, but which, as it stands, comprises and combines the fun of
Bardolph and Lord Bundreary,.