DOI issue:
November 7, 1863
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16872#0198
-1
November 7, 1863.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. 187
“ Ob ! ” indeed. It is needless to say, that “ after great confusion,”
which always attends a ratepayers’ meeting, “the resolution” was
unanimously carried, and the meeting separated.
As aforesaid, we presume Mr. Wright’s innocence; but, were the
contrary established, we should say that it only exemplified . the
working of a system of taxation which assesses temporary earnings
at as high a rate as permanent revenue. If the system of taxation is
one of robbery, what else can be expected of the instruments who
■ enforce it ?
GOOD WORDS IN THEIR WAY AT MANCHESTER.
here is an excellent periodical
called Good Words. On the
occasion of the public break-
fast at the Albion Hotel,
w'hen the Rev. Mr. Beecher
took leave of his friends at
Manchester, a speech was
made by a gentleman of
Liverpool, Mr. J. Pattison,
containing, as reported, a few
words which might be in-
serted, for contrast’s sake, in
that well conducted miscel-
lany.
Subjoined are a few of the
words in question, ascribed
to Mr. Pattison. They
relate to Lord Brougham :—
“ When he remembered what he
said when he was simply Henry
Brougham, he could not help eon-
trastingit with his present conduct.
What were then the utterances of
one of the brightest sons of morn-
ing, and his words would live for
ever; but now his utterances—
since he had become a Lord—were
base and truculent upon this great
question. (Loud applause.)’’
Mr. Pattison, according to the report just quoted, is, as aforesaid,
a Liverpool gentleman, but he does not talk Lancashire. The descrip-
tion of Lord Brougham as having, when he was simply Henry
Brougham, been one of the brightest sons of the morning, is an
■example of rhetoric much too florid, and hardly perspicuous enough,
for the mouth of an honest North countryman. Nor would a true
Liverpool man have said that the “utterances” of Brougham—
“since he had become a Lord,”—were “base and truculent” on the
question of anti-slavery, to which Mr. Pattison was referring, unless
he had some proof of the applicability of those adjectives to Lord
Brougham’s utterances, more demonstrative than that which follows
in the continuation of Mr. Pattison’s address; to wit:—
“ —and in proof of his assertion he read an extract from a speech recently de-
livered by Lord Brougham at a banquet in Edinburgh, in which he spoke of himself
as the only one who had fought the battle of the abolitionists in England, and that
the proclamation of Mr. Lincoln was a disgrace to a civilised Government, inasmuch
as it was issued with the view of inducing the slaves to rise in rebellion against
their ownei-s, and that they would have done so but for their contentedness with
their condition and their masters. Now, when Lord Brougham stood forth and
said that, he stood up like a bully and lied, for he knew that the proclamation was
issued not with that view, but with the view of bringing back into the Union the
rebellious states; and that, if they refused to accept the conditions therein set forth,
their property in the slaves would be confiscated.”
The truculence of Lord Brougham’s by no means singular suppo-
sition that Mr. Lincoln’s proclamation was issued for a truculent
purpose must be pointed out to be perceived. The baseness of his
assertion, that he alone had fought the battle of the abolitionists in
England, would, to be sure, be self-evident if he had ever said any such
thing, instead of having, often enough, feelingly commemorated his old
companions in arms, sharers in the glory of emancipation. A native of
Liverpool would be much more precise than Mr. Pattison in the
employment of such words as “ base ” and “ truculent,” though good
words in their way, namely when applied to people who rave under the
influence of ignoble malice.
Neither would any Liverpool man, at least any Liverpool gentleman,
have said that Lord Brougham, wLien he expressed an opinion, right
or wrong, “stood up like a bully and lied.” Eor he would have con-
sidered such language to be not exactly suitable to a personage of
Lord Brougham’s antecedents and age, and may think that if there is
any conduct which deserves to be described as standing up and lying, it
is that of standing up and belching virulent abuse against a venerable
old man.
In short, the eloquence attributed to Mr. Pattison is not English.
Neither is it Scotch. Shall we insult a noble people by calling it
■Irish ? We will not, by any means: but from some experience of the
bowlings of a certain tribe of Irishmen, allied to those who constitute
the “Eenian Brotherhood,” we will venture to say that it is, if not an
example, at least a close imitation, of the utterances of the sort of Irish-
man that is synonymous with Lundy Eoot’s renowned snuff.
QUOTATIONS.
As we have found, since writing our last article upon this subject,
that there are several lines familiar to most of ns which were not
written by Shakspeare, we hasten to place our information before the
Public, and more especially do we desire to call the attention of
Members of Parliament, Ready Writers, After Dinner Speakers, Bril-
liant Conversationalists, and Burlesque Writers, to the selections from
the Poets which we are now about t.o give.
When discoursing at the Town Hall, Spinnerton, on the Beauties of
the Poets, you can mention Siiakspeare thus“ Shakspeare, con-
cerning whom Dryden has said
‘1 Fancy Shakspeare driven wild
By the woodnotes of a child.”
On the Horrors of Domestic Felicity—
“ Birds in their little nests agree ;
But ’tis a dreadful sight! ”—Watts.
“You remember,” this comes in your speech ou the Delights of
Home. “How touchingly the wife of Roderick, in Scott’s charming
poem asks at what hour her Lord will return, when she says to the
steward, whose name was Jackson—
“ And Jackson, when is Roderick due ?”
Isn’t this homely F isn’t this Nature? ”
The Merriment of Intoxication—
“ There was a laughing Devil in his Beer.”—The Corsair.
Burns has admirably expressed the Greed of Gain and the Pro-
digality of the Spendthrift in that well-known verse—
“ If there’s a hole for a’ your goats,
I rede ye tent ’em,
A chiel’s amang ye taking notes.
An faith he’s spent ’em.”
On the questionable good of putting your name to paper, the same
Poet has aptly said, when speaking of one Lang, a character in his
Poem—
“ Should Auld Lang sign? ”
A problem which is ultimately solved by a negative.
The Delights of the Country—
“ On the Grampian hills
My father feeds a fox.
And frugal swan.”
Eor any Theatrical speech made in reference to The Haunted Man,—
“ Welcome the coming, speed the parting Ghost! ”
Finally, to recur to Shakspeare, you may always be ready with
the following lines, adapted to any conversation, by the genius who
was for all time,—
“ The Poet’s eye, on a fine Wednesday rolling,
Doth glance from Hecuba to him, and he to Hecuba.
Yet in the very witching time of night, his pen,
What it has done, when ’tis done, ’tis done well,
Turns all to juggling fiends, while the brief caudle
Throws physic to the dogs.”
Be particular, in delivering the above, to mark the punctuation carefully,
and use your arms with discretion, for the sake of grace and emphasis.
Has not Shakspeare, in this instance, himself said of such action,—
“ He saw the air with his hands.”
Any other less imaginative writer would have used the common-place
of eyes for “ hands” and would have probably omitted such a phrase as
“ saw the air ” on the ground of its being a physical impossibility. But
this is a grand instance of poetic licence and real imaginative power.
Delicate Diplomatists.
One of Reuter’s telegrams from Paris, announced that—
“ This evening the Annamite Ambassadors will dine with M. Drouyn de Lhuys.”
The Annamite Ambassadors use no pocket handkerchiefs, nor any-
thing of the kind. We hope M. Drouyn de Lhuys got over his
dinner without being very ill.
The Dramatic Author’s Playground.—Paris.
»
November 7, 1863.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. 187
“ Ob ! ” indeed. It is needless to say, that “ after great confusion,”
which always attends a ratepayers’ meeting, “the resolution” was
unanimously carried, and the meeting separated.
As aforesaid, we presume Mr. Wright’s innocence; but, were the
contrary established, we should say that it only exemplified . the
working of a system of taxation which assesses temporary earnings
at as high a rate as permanent revenue. If the system of taxation is
one of robbery, what else can be expected of the instruments who
■ enforce it ?
GOOD WORDS IN THEIR WAY AT MANCHESTER.
here is an excellent periodical
called Good Words. On the
occasion of the public break-
fast at the Albion Hotel,
w'hen the Rev. Mr. Beecher
took leave of his friends at
Manchester, a speech was
made by a gentleman of
Liverpool, Mr. J. Pattison,
containing, as reported, a few
words which might be in-
serted, for contrast’s sake, in
that well conducted miscel-
lany.
Subjoined are a few of the
words in question, ascribed
to Mr. Pattison. They
relate to Lord Brougham :—
“ When he remembered what he
said when he was simply Henry
Brougham, he could not help eon-
trastingit with his present conduct.
What were then the utterances of
one of the brightest sons of morn-
ing, and his words would live for
ever; but now his utterances—
since he had become a Lord—were
base and truculent upon this great
question. (Loud applause.)’’
Mr. Pattison, according to the report just quoted, is, as aforesaid,
a Liverpool gentleman, but he does not talk Lancashire. The descrip-
tion of Lord Brougham as having, when he was simply Henry
Brougham, been one of the brightest sons of the morning, is an
■example of rhetoric much too florid, and hardly perspicuous enough,
for the mouth of an honest North countryman. Nor would a true
Liverpool man have said that the “utterances” of Brougham—
“since he had become a Lord,”—were “base and truculent” on the
question of anti-slavery, to which Mr. Pattison was referring, unless
he had some proof of the applicability of those adjectives to Lord
Brougham’s utterances, more demonstrative than that which follows
in the continuation of Mr. Pattison’s address; to wit:—
“ —and in proof of his assertion he read an extract from a speech recently de-
livered by Lord Brougham at a banquet in Edinburgh, in which he spoke of himself
as the only one who had fought the battle of the abolitionists in England, and that
the proclamation of Mr. Lincoln was a disgrace to a civilised Government, inasmuch
as it was issued with the view of inducing the slaves to rise in rebellion against
their ownei-s, and that they would have done so but for their contentedness with
their condition and their masters. Now, when Lord Brougham stood forth and
said that, he stood up like a bully and lied, for he knew that the proclamation was
issued not with that view, but with the view of bringing back into the Union the
rebellious states; and that, if they refused to accept the conditions therein set forth,
their property in the slaves would be confiscated.”
The truculence of Lord Brougham’s by no means singular suppo-
sition that Mr. Lincoln’s proclamation was issued for a truculent
purpose must be pointed out to be perceived. The baseness of his
assertion, that he alone had fought the battle of the abolitionists in
England, would, to be sure, be self-evident if he had ever said any such
thing, instead of having, often enough, feelingly commemorated his old
companions in arms, sharers in the glory of emancipation. A native of
Liverpool would be much more precise than Mr. Pattison in the
employment of such words as “ base ” and “ truculent,” though good
words in their way, namely when applied to people who rave under the
influence of ignoble malice.
Neither would any Liverpool man, at least any Liverpool gentleman,
have said that Lord Brougham, wLien he expressed an opinion, right
or wrong, “stood up like a bully and lied.” Eor he would have con-
sidered such language to be not exactly suitable to a personage of
Lord Brougham’s antecedents and age, and may think that if there is
any conduct which deserves to be described as standing up and lying, it
is that of standing up and belching virulent abuse against a venerable
old man.
In short, the eloquence attributed to Mr. Pattison is not English.
Neither is it Scotch. Shall we insult a noble people by calling it
■Irish ? We will not, by any means: but from some experience of the
bowlings of a certain tribe of Irishmen, allied to those who constitute
the “Eenian Brotherhood,” we will venture to say that it is, if not an
example, at least a close imitation, of the utterances of the sort of Irish-
man that is synonymous with Lundy Eoot’s renowned snuff.
QUOTATIONS.
As we have found, since writing our last article upon this subject,
that there are several lines familiar to most of ns which were not
written by Shakspeare, we hasten to place our information before the
Public, and more especially do we desire to call the attention of
Members of Parliament, Ready Writers, After Dinner Speakers, Bril-
liant Conversationalists, and Burlesque Writers, to the selections from
the Poets which we are now about t.o give.
When discoursing at the Town Hall, Spinnerton, on the Beauties of
the Poets, you can mention Siiakspeare thus“ Shakspeare, con-
cerning whom Dryden has said
‘1 Fancy Shakspeare driven wild
By the woodnotes of a child.”
On the Horrors of Domestic Felicity—
“ Birds in their little nests agree ;
But ’tis a dreadful sight! ”—Watts.
“You remember,” this comes in your speech ou the Delights of
Home. “How touchingly the wife of Roderick, in Scott’s charming
poem asks at what hour her Lord will return, when she says to the
steward, whose name was Jackson—
“ And Jackson, when is Roderick due ?”
Isn’t this homely F isn’t this Nature? ”
The Merriment of Intoxication—
“ There was a laughing Devil in his Beer.”—The Corsair.
Burns has admirably expressed the Greed of Gain and the Pro-
digality of the Spendthrift in that well-known verse—
“ If there’s a hole for a’ your goats,
I rede ye tent ’em,
A chiel’s amang ye taking notes.
An faith he’s spent ’em.”
On the questionable good of putting your name to paper, the same
Poet has aptly said, when speaking of one Lang, a character in his
Poem—
“ Should Auld Lang sign? ”
A problem which is ultimately solved by a negative.
The Delights of the Country—
“ On the Grampian hills
My father feeds a fox.
And frugal swan.”
Eor any Theatrical speech made in reference to The Haunted Man,—
“ Welcome the coming, speed the parting Ghost! ”
Finally, to recur to Shakspeare, you may always be ready with
the following lines, adapted to any conversation, by the genius who
was for all time,—
“ The Poet’s eye, on a fine Wednesday rolling,
Doth glance from Hecuba to him, and he to Hecuba.
Yet in the very witching time of night, his pen,
What it has done, when ’tis done, ’tis done well,
Turns all to juggling fiends, while the brief caudle
Throws physic to the dogs.”
Be particular, in delivering the above, to mark the punctuation carefully,
and use your arms with discretion, for the sake of grace and emphasis.
Has not Shakspeare, in this instance, himself said of such action,—
“ He saw the air with his hands.”
Any other less imaginative writer would have used the common-place
of eyes for “ hands” and would have probably omitted such a phrase as
“ saw the air ” on the ground of its being a physical impossibility. But
this is a grand instance of poetic licence and real imaginative power.
Delicate Diplomatists.
One of Reuter’s telegrams from Paris, announced that—
“ This evening the Annamite Ambassadors will dine with M. Drouyn de Lhuys.”
The Annamite Ambassadors use no pocket handkerchiefs, nor any-
thing of the kind. We hope M. Drouyn de Lhuys got over his
dinner without being very ill.
The Dramatic Author’s Playground.—Paris.
»