DOI Heft:
March 22, 1862
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16869#0119
March 22, 1862.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
ill
YOUNG AND BRAVE, BUT MERCENARY.
Dentist. ‘‘ Don't cry, my little friend. T didn't hurt your Sister very much—and
besides, your Mamma has just given her half-a-croxm.”
Boy. uBoo-hoo! m-m-mayn’t I have a tooth took out tool”
FRANCE AND MUMBO JUMBO.
Mumbo Jumbo reigns in Rome,
Feared beyond the salt sea-foam,
By his subjects scorned at home :
They laugh at Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo governs there,
Guarded in St. Peter’s Chair,
Romans France compels to bear
The yoke of Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo Frenchmen rules
By the help of priestly tools,
For in France too many fools
Believe in Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo frightens France,
Or Napoleon would advance,
And withdraw his countenance
Away from Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo then would flee,
Or in Rome but own a See,
Capital of Italy
Exempt from Mumbo Jumbo.
“ TEE PLAY ’S THE THING.”
We read that there have not been less than three suicides
this year at Homburg from gambling. We have heard of
“ the hazard of the die,” but the above calamities would
indicate that there was very little “ hazard ” indeed about
it. Is it not rather “ the certainty of the die ? ” So many
end their days fatally, who lend themselves to the madden-
ing pursuit, that we should be inclined to pronounce it “a
dead certainty.” Of all follies, gambling would seem, with
painful truth, to be the most suicidal. Those German prin-
cipalities, that support themselves by the produce of the
gaming-table, may be said to exist principally by means of
blood-money. Fb.edeb.ick Lemaitre used to play in a
popular melodrama, called Vingt-cinq ans de la vie d’un
Joueur. Five-and-twenty years is a long period for the
feverish existence of a gambler. If you were to limit it to
as many days, we think it would be much nearer the
mark. The play of the Gamester is never one that has a
long run.
PUNCH'S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.
March 12. Monday. Lord Campbell (as Lord Stratheden has
elected to be called) raised the Blockade question. He insists that we
are not Neutral in the American quarrel, for that we recognise an inef-
fective Blockade, and that this is unfair to Richmond. New York
may muddle up a quotation and say:—
* “ Why, what is that to me
More than to Richmond, for the selfsame England
That lours at me looks sadly upon it.”
Lord Abinger made a statement which must enchant the Americans,
both North and. South. He had travelled in the States, and had formed
a favourable opinion of both populations, and therefore he did not wish
us to raise the Blockade, but thought that the time for recognising the
South had come. The Foreign Secretary defended his conduct, urged
that the Federals had certainly done their utmost to make the Blockade
effectual, and that three thousand miles of coast are not easily guarded
so closely as to make infringement impossible. But the vessels that
have run the Blockade were few, and of no important character, and a
better proof still was, that somehow the Southern Cotton did not get
out, although England and France were eager for it. The Earl hoped
that in three months, or sooner, we might see an end of the war, and
that the Separation of North and South, whose old feelings it would
be impossible to renew, might be accomplished peaceably. We hope
so too; but the North, after a series of disasters and disgraces, is now
coming down on the South, in such an overwhelming force, that we
fear there for a time at least we shall have to say, Vce victis.
Mr. Disraeli called on the Premier to state whether another
edict which breathes out threatenings and slaughters against the
Neapolitan brigands, and those who may assist them, were genuine.
Lord Palmerston spoke of the document with disgust, and hoped to
be able to learn that it had been disavowed and censured by the King
op Italy. Readers of journals will observe that just now it is the
Conservative game to be very pathetic on behalf of the poor peasantry
of the districts from which the despots have been ejected, and it is
remarkable that when the liberators, very wickedly, take a leaf out of
the cruel book of the old dynasty, our Opposition is affected even to
tears, though in the old days, ten times as much atrocity was wrought
without notice from the tender-hearted Tories. Now, the latter are
quite right in protesting against cruelty, but they have been a good
while in finding out that it hurts.
Army matters again, and Sandhurst College (which has been rather
neatly termed a Horse Guards’ Preserve) came_ up again. Sir G.
Lewis proposed to the House to reverse the decision against the en-
largement of the College, and after a debate^ carried his motion that
the subject should be reconsidered on the following Thursday. It
seems that the authorities of our Universities are desirous to assist in
promoting military education, in connection with Sandhurst, and ere
long the streets of Oxford and Cambridge will resound to the sonorous
voices of the Dons, classically calling to the young soldiers Gradu
militari incedere, presenting a Vexillum, with the warning Magnum
perdere crimen est, bawling to them in orbem se tutari to resist cavalry,
and perhaps bestowing as reward a corona castrensis, or vattaris. If
Albemarle Street can spare Dr. William Smith for half an hour, that
learned gentleman might advantageously dash off a classic manual for
the soldier-scholar, so that the ingenuous youth could learn at once
his drill and his dictionary.
Tuesday was chiefly remarkable for the beginning of a little duel
between two of the most accomplished duellists in the legislature. It
happened that the Second Reading of the Chancellor’s Lunacy Bill
came on, and that Lord Chelmsford thought proper to take sundry
objections thereto. They were not wise objections, and one especial
piece of nonsense was Lord Chelmsford’s fear lest the public ex-
amination of a lunatic might scandalise the modest aud virtuous
audience in court. In the first place, the Judge could and would stop
or remove any unfortunate creature who might give vent to the
utterances in question, and in the second place, on the principle de
minimis non, it is a little ridiculous for the law to be considering the
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
ill
YOUNG AND BRAVE, BUT MERCENARY.
Dentist. ‘‘ Don't cry, my little friend. T didn't hurt your Sister very much—and
besides, your Mamma has just given her half-a-croxm.”
Boy. uBoo-hoo! m-m-mayn’t I have a tooth took out tool”
FRANCE AND MUMBO JUMBO.
Mumbo Jumbo reigns in Rome,
Feared beyond the salt sea-foam,
By his subjects scorned at home :
They laugh at Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo governs there,
Guarded in St. Peter’s Chair,
Romans France compels to bear
The yoke of Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo Frenchmen rules
By the help of priestly tools,
For in France too many fools
Believe in Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo frightens France,
Or Napoleon would advance,
And withdraw his countenance
Away from Mumbo Jumbo.
Mumbo Jumbo then would flee,
Or in Rome but own a See,
Capital of Italy
Exempt from Mumbo Jumbo.
“ TEE PLAY ’S THE THING.”
We read that there have not been less than three suicides
this year at Homburg from gambling. We have heard of
“ the hazard of the die,” but the above calamities would
indicate that there was very little “ hazard ” indeed about
it. Is it not rather “ the certainty of the die ? ” So many
end their days fatally, who lend themselves to the madden-
ing pursuit, that we should be inclined to pronounce it “a
dead certainty.” Of all follies, gambling would seem, with
painful truth, to be the most suicidal. Those German prin-
cipalities, that support themselves by the produce of the
gaming-table, may be said to exist principally by means of
blood-money. Fb.edeb.ick Lemaitre used to play in a
popular melodrama, called Vingt-cinq ans de la vie d’un
Joueur. Five-and-twenty years is a long period for the
feverish existence of a gambler. If you were to limit it to
as many days, we think it would be much nearer the
mark. The play of the Gamester is never one that has a
long run.
PUNCH'S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.
March 12. Monday. Lord Campbell (as Lord Stratheden has
elected to be called) raised the Blockade question. He insists that we
are not Neutral in the American quarrel, for that we recognise an inef-
fective Blockade, and that this is unfair to Richmond. New York
may muddle up a quotation and say:—
* “ Why, what is that to me
More than to Richmond, for the selfsame England
That lours at me looks sadly upon it.”
Lord Abinger made a statement which must enchant the Americans,
both North and. South. He had travelled in the States, and had formed
a favourable opinion of both populations, and therefore he did not wish
us to raise the Blockade, but thought that the time for recognising the
South had come. The Foreign Secretary defended his conduct, urged
that the Federals had certainly done their utmost to make the Blockade
effectual, and that three thousand miles of coast are not easily guarded
so closely as to make infringement impossible. But the vessels that
have run the Blockade were few, and of no important character, and a
better proof still was, that somehow the Southern Cotton did not get
out, although England and France were eager for it. The Earl hoped
that in three months, or sooner, we might see an end of the war, and
that the Separation of North and South, whose old feelings it would
be impossible to renew, might be accomplished peaceably. We hope
so too; but the North, after a series of disasters and disgraces, is now
coming down on the South, in such an overwhelming force, that we
fear there for a time at least we shall have to say, Vce victis.
Mr. Disraeli called on the Premier to state whether another
edict which breathes out threatenings and slaughters against the
Neapolitan brigands, and those who may assist them, were genuine.
Lord Palmerston spoke of the document with disgust, and hoped to
be able to learn that it had been disavowed and censured by the King
op Italy. Readers of journals will observe that just now it is the
Conservative game to be very pathetic on behalf of the poor peasantry
of the districts from which the despots have been ejected, and it is
remarkable that when the liberators, very wickedly, take a leaf out of
the cruel book of the old dynasty, our Opposition is affected even to
tears, though in the old days, ten times as much atrocity was wrought
without notice from the tender-hearted Tories. Now, the latter are
quite right in protesting against cruelty, but they have been a good
while in finding out that it hurts.
Army matters again, and Sandhurst College (which has been rather
neatly termed a Horse Guards’ Preserve) came_ up again. Sir G.
Lewis proposed to the House to reverse the decision against the en-
largement of the College, and after a debate^ carried his motion that
the subject should be reconsidered on the following Thursday. It
seems that the authorities of our Universities are desirous to assist in
promoting military education, in connection with Sandhurst, and ere
long the streets of Oxford and Cambridge will resound to the sonorous
voices of the Dons, classically calling to the young soldiers Gradu
militari incedere, presenting a Vexillum, with the warning Magnum
perdere crimen est, bawling to them in orbem se tutari to resist cavalry,
and perhaps bestowing as reward a corona castrensis, or vattaris. If
Albemarle Street can spare Dr. William Smith for half an hour, that
learned gentleman might advantageously dash off a classic manual for
the soldier-scholar, so that the ingenuous youth could learn at once
his drill and his dictionary.
Tuesday was chiefly remarkable for the beginning of a little duel
between two of the most accomplished duellists in the legislature. It
happened that the Second Reading of the Chancellor’s Lunacy Bill
came on, and that Lord Chelmsford thought proper to take sundry
objections thereto. They were not wise objections, and one especial
piece of nonsense was Lord Chelmsford’s fear lest the public ex-
amination of a lunatic might scandalise the modest aud virtuous
audience in court. In the first place, the Judge could and would stop
or remove any unfortunate creature who might give vent to the
utterances in question, and in the second place, on the principle de
minimis non, it is a little ridiculous for the law to be considering the