DOI issue:
February 13, 1864
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16873#0071
PUNCH, OK THE LONDON CHAK1YAKL
February 13, 1864.1
63
OUR RAILWAY KINGS AND COMMONS.
mons {Punch waits for performances) be it said that Lord Richard
Grosvenor, in the costume of a Cheshire Yeoman, moved the
Address, which was seconded by Mr. Goschen, the junior Member for
the City, and who is decidedly a clever man. Having thus made him
happy tor life, let us proceed to say that
Mr. Disraeli delivered a slashing speech against Ministers generally,
but chiefly against Lord Russell, to whose office Mr. Disraeli has
obtained his own consent to succeed, when the Tories and the Cockli-
cranes come in. He considered that England was right in not going to
Congress, but wrong in having refused in a rude manner. As to Greece,
we had done nothing but blunder, and though one could guard against
an enemy, no human sagacity could baffle the unconscious machinations
of Stupidity. As for Denmark, Ministers had no policy, but came to
beg one from Parliament. They were always discourteous to the House
of Commons—let them be so—let them humiliate the Commons, but not
ask them to bear responsibility. We had alienated all our allies, and
except the King op Denmark, have not a friend in Europe. Where
were the papers which the House ought to have ?
Lord Palmerston said that Ministers had a policy, a very good one,
and one which the House would support. It was a Policy of Peace.
It was odd that if we had no allies, other powers insisted on acting with
us, and France, Russia, and Sweden had joined us in calling on the
Germans to halt. The Premier made the same statement as Lord
Russell had done about the undertaking by the Germans to respect
the Treaty. He promised no end of papers, and wished anybody joy
who had to read them, and he ended with some rather clever badinage
touching the cruelty of Government in not giving Mr. Disraeli a peg on
which to hang an amendment.
Only three other points arose on which Mr. Punch intends to remark.
One was, that after the Government had made the semi-satisfactory
statement about the Germans and the Treaty, Sir John Pakington
was rude enough to bring out the fact that there was an “ if ” in the
matter. The Germans will respect the Treaty, they say, if the Danes
don’t fight too hard, or obtain assistance from any other power. What
do you think of that, my Catti F
Secondly, Mr. Hennessy said (and was rebuked by Mr. Gladstone
for the “ indecorum ” of saying), that war with Germany had been pre-
vented by the Queen herself.
Thirdly, Mr. Ivinglake asked, what the people would say if we now
went to war about agnails and cognacs—bother, we mean agnates and
cognates.
Then the Address was voted, and the Commons adjourned at 11'55.
Friday. In the Lords the Chancellor, who was last year empowered
to sell a number of small church-livings in the gift of the Crown, was
happy to announce that the article commanded a very high figure in the
market, and was much sought after.
Mr. Whiteside thought that Ireland ought to have been mentioned
in the Speech, drew rather a melancholy picture of the condition of that
country, and complained that the Chancellor of Ireland was wicked
enough not to give away much patronage to the enemies of the Govern-
ment. Sir Robert Peel thought that Ireland was getting on very
well, and that there was no need to make a fuss, and Mr. O’Hagan
defended the Irish Chancellor, boldly and ably.
HIGHLY PROBARLE.
Said Dixon to Shakspeare,
“In your cause to take spear
And ride a tilt, all in your colours,
Is what we aspire to,
And England would fire to—
We, your National Monument-mullers.”
Said Shakspeare to Dixon,
“ More half-pence than kicks on
My behalf though you’re anxious to scrape hence,
I’m afraid you will find
The Public inclined
To present you with more kicks than half-pence.”
LITERARY SMASHERS.
The Americans are very fond of coining words. They do it almost as
extensively as Mr. Secretary Chase prints greenbacks, and we doubt
if the circulation of the one is much more valuable than that of the
other. They are unquestionably the largest utterers of false notes in
the world, so far as our lingual currency is concerned. If “ the pure well
of English” is to remain “undefiled,” no Yankee should be allowed
henceforth to throw mud into it. It is a form of verbal expectoration
that is most profane, most detestable. This propensity for defiling that
which should be kept as pure as possible, has been greatly on the
increase within the last few years. Indeed, it is with pain we confess
that, ever since the war began, the Yankees have been giving the
English (and it has been a most savage way of displaying their animosity)
no i lung but bad words /
Caution ! Only look at this :—
“ It appears from Bradshaw's Manual that the Session will open with forty-seven
Railway directors in the House of Lords, and one hundred and fifty-three in the
House of Commons.”
People who complain of Railway Aggression may guess from this brief
paragraph what likelihood there is that Parliament will look to the
protection of their property. One might as well expect a parliament of
poachers to pass an Act for the protection of partridges and pheasants,
or a parliament of pickpockets to propose a law for making theft a
capital offence, as expect the present Parliament to protect our Capital
(to say nothing of our interests) from the Railways which are threatening
it. With two hundred directors to direct its demolition, London soon
will be so cut up that we shall scarcely know it. What was once a
noble city will become merely a place where any railway rubbish may
be shot. Wherever he may live in it, a Londoner will find he cannot
call his home his own; for, as soon as he gets settled in it, his house,
the chances are, will be required for some new Railway; and if he moves
into another, he will hardly get his things straight when he again has to
turn out. _ To judge by what one sees, as well as what one hears of, a
residence in London will soon not be procurable without a Railway
burrowing and rumbling through the cellar, or a Railway running close
by on a level with the drawing-room, or a Railway bridged across the
street a few feet from the roof. Indeed, if Railway schemes continue to
pour m as they have done, we Londoners may soon expect to see St.
Paul’s pulled down, and its bail and cross stuck up to adorn a monster
terminus erected on its site.
THE DROP AND WHAT NEXT ?
A Leader in the Morning Post, insisting, not without some show of
reason, that a murderer ought to be hanged whether he goes mad or
not, contains these words
“With regard to the question of preparation for the next world, that might
equally he urged against hanging murderers at all. It is no more valid as a reason
for not exeouting a murderer gone mad after sentence than it is as a reason for
abolishing capital punishment altogether. To spare the murderer on this account
is, to that extent, to hold out a positive and palpable temptation to commit murder.
But it is doubtful if any reasonable person who has reflected logically on the subject
really ever supposed that, as regards the murderer’s future position, the very sus-
picious sort of repentance that can take place, during the very short interval between
sentence and execution, can make any difference one way or the other. ”
If it does not, to hang a man is to send him—whither ?
Thither, whither because Hamlet wanted to send his uncle, he would
not kill him when he found him at prayers. If this is so, the farce of
spiritual ministration to the condemned criminal might as well be
abolished. If it is not so, then, as the Prince of Denmark remarks on
the above-mentioned occasion, to put him to death is “hire and salary,
not revenge.” Hanging seems to be infinitely too bad or too good for
a being who, like Michael Cassio, has “ a soul to be saved.” If a man
dies as a dog, hang a murderer like a dog, by all means. But if not,
how then? Could secondary punishment be tried, with the under-
standing that, in case of its failure as a preventive measure, the stronger
remedy of hemp should be reverted to P
ENGLISH PLAYS AND ERENCH CRITICS.
We cite this from the Paris Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph:—
“ In the Petit Journal of to-day I read that Mr. Webster, of the Adelphi, and his
‘ favourite interpreters of Shakspeare,’ have taken twelve places in the steamer
from London to Boulogne, and two special carriages—deux wagons spieiaux—in the
train to Paris, and are about to perform here. The first performance will be the
Maid of Lyons, and then Othello, Lear, As You, Like It, and Hamlet. Fechter has
been offered thirty napoleons a night to join the expedition. The critic, whose
; article I quote, winds up by saying, • Let Mr. Webster and his twelve artists come,
and Shakspeare and Lonn Byron and Sheridan Knowles, and Garrick, and James,
and all the British host! We shall be in our staU, ready to welcome this demonstra-
tion of English genius, and to call out the usual expression of success, ‘ All right! ’ ’
Shakspeare we know, and Lord Byron we know, but wbo is
James ? Iu the “ British host ” of novelists the name is not unknown,
but the dramatic works of James by no means are familiar to us, After
a play by “ Williams,” it would rather be a novelty to see a farce by
James ; and we hope that Mu. Webster, when be returns from Paris,
will let us have this treat. If be does so, like our French friend, “ we
shall be in our stall,” and ready to applaud the success of the per-
formance by shouting out, as usual in our theatres, “ All right! ”
Horticultural.
A Cultivated Horticulturist writes to ask us, “ On what he can
graft a Lapsus Linguce, or slip of a tongue ? ” Cultivated H. had
better wait for the London Season, and select some fine flowery speech.
Practical Gardener is fitting up a new bouse, and wants to know
what pictures be could put in his drawing-room suitable to bis every-
day work F We ’ll tell him ; “ The Fake’s Progress.”
February 13, 1864.1
63
OUR RAILWAY KINGS AND COMMONS.
mons {Punch waits for performances) be it said that Lord Richard
Grosvenor, in the costume of a Cheshire Yeoman, moved the
Address, which was seconded by Mr. Goschen, the junior Member for
the City, and who is decidedly a clever man. Having thus made him
happy tor life, let us proceed to say that
Mr. Disraeli delivered a slashing speech against Ministers generally,
but chiefly against Lord Russell, to whose office Mr. Disraeli has
obtained his own consent to succeed, when the Tories and the Cockli-
cranes come in. He considered that England was right in not going to
Congress, but wrong in having refused in a rude manner. As to Greece,
we had done nothing but blunder, and though one could guard against
an enemy, no human sagacity could baffle the unconscious machinations
of Stupidity. As for Denmark, Ministers had no policy, but came to
beg one from Parliament. They were always discourteous to the House
of Commons—let them be so—let them humiliate the Commons, but not
ask them to bear responsibility. We had alienated all our allies, and
except the King op Denmark, have not a friend in Europe. Where
were the papers which the House ought to have ?
Lord Palmerston said that Ministers had a policy, a very good one,
and one which the House would support. It was a Policy of Peace.
It was odd that if we had no allies, other powers insisted on acting with
us, and France, Russia, and Sweden had joined us in calling on the
Germans to halt. The Premier made the same statement as Lord
Russell had done about the undertaking by the Germans to respect
the Treaty. He promised no end of papers, and wished anybody joy
who had to read them, and he ended with some rather clever badinage
touching the cruelty of Government in not giving Mr. Disraeli a peg on
which to hang an amendment.
Only three other points arose on which Mr. Punch intends to remark.
One was, that after the Government had made the semi-satisfactory
statement about the Germans and the Treaty, Sir John Pakington
was rude enough to bring out the fact that there was an “ if ” in the
matter. The Germans will respect the Treaty, they say, if the Danes
don’t fight too hard, or obtain assistance from any other power. What
do you think of that, my Catti F
Secondly, Mr. Hennessy said (and was rebuked by Mr. Gladstone
for the “ indecorum ” of saying), that war with Germany had been pre-
vented by the Queen herself.
Thirdly, Mr. Ivinglake asked, what the people would say if we now
went to war about agnails and cognacs—bother, we mean agnates and
cognates.
Then the Address was voted, and the Commons adjourned at 11'55.
Friday. In the Lords the Chancellor, who was last year empowered
to sell a number of small church-livings in the gift of the Crown, was
happy to announce that the article commanded a very high figure in the
market, and was much sought after.
Mr. Whiteside thought that Ireland ought to have been mentioned
in the Speech, drew rather a melancholy picture of the condition of that
country, and complained that the Chancellor of Ireland was wicked
enough not to give away much patronage to the enemies of the Govern-
ment. Sir Robert Peel thought that Ireland was getting on very
well, and that there was no need to make a fuss, and Mr. O’Hagan
defended the Irish Chancellor, boldly and ably.
HIGHLY PROBARLE.
Said Dixon to Shakspeare,
“In your cause to take spear
And ride a tilt, all in your colours,
Is what we aspire to,
And England would fire to—
We, your National Monument-mullers.”
Said Shakspeare to Dixon,
“ More half-pence than kicks on
My behalf though you’re anxious to scrape hence,
I’m afraid you will find
The Public inclined
To present you with more kicks than half-pence.”
LITERARY SMASHERS.
The Americans are very fond of coining words. They do it almost as
extensively as Mr. Secretary Chase prints greenbacks, and we doubt
if the circulation of the one is much more valuable than that of the
other. They are unquestionably the largest utterers of false notes in
the world, so far as our lingual currency is concerned. If “ the pure well
of English” is to remain “undefiled,” no Yankee should be allowed
henceforth to throw mud into it. It is a form of verbal expectoration
that is most profane, most detestable. This propensity for defiling that
which should be kept as pure as possible, has been greatly on the
increase within the last few years. Indeed, it is with pain we confess
that, ever since the war began, the Yankees have been giving the
English (and it has been a most savage way of displaying their animosity)
no i lung but bad words /
Caution ! Only look at this :—
“ It appears from Bradshaw's Manual that the Session will open with forty-seven
Railway directors in the House of Lords, and one hundred and fifty-three in the
House of Commons.”
People who complain of Railway Aggression may guess from this brief
paragraph what likelihood there is that Parliament will look to the
protection of their property. One might as well expect a parliament of
poachers to pass an Act for the protection of partridges and pheasants,
or a parliament of pickpockets to propose a law for making theft a
capital offence, as expect the present Parliament to protect our Capital
(to say nothing of our interests) from the Railways which are threatening
it. With two hundred directors to direct its demolition, London soon
will be so cut up that we shall scarcely know it. What was once a
noble city will become merely a place where any railway rubbish may
be shot. Wherever he may live in it, a Londoner will find he cannot
call his home his own; for, as soon as he gets settled in it, his house,
the chances are, will be required for some new Railway; and if he moves
into another, he will hardly get his things straight when he again has to
turn out. _ To judge by what one sees, as well as what one hears of, a
residence in London will soon not be procurable without a Railway
burrowing and rumbling through the cellar, or a Railway running close
by on a level with the drawing-room, or a Railway bridged across the
street a few feet from the roof. Indeed, if Railway schemes continue to
pour m as they have done, we Londoners may soon expect to see St.
Paul’s pulled down, and its bail and cross stuck up to adorn a monster
terminus erected on its site.
THE DROP AND WHAT NEXT ?
A Leader in the Morning Post, insisting, not without some show of
reason, that a murderer ought to be hanged whether he goes mad or
not, contains these words
“With regard to the question of preparation for the next world, that might
equally he urged against hanging murderers at all. It is no more valid as a reason
for not exeouting a murderer gone mad after sentence than it is as a reason for
abolishing capital punishment altogether. To spare the murderer on this account
is, to that extent, to hold out a positive and palpable temptation to commit murder.
But it is doubtful if any reasonable person who has reflected logically on the subject
really ever supposed that, as regards the murderer’s future position, the very sus-
picious sort of repentance that can take place, during the very short interval between
sentence and execution, can make any difference one way or the other. ”
If it does not, to hang a man is to send him—whither ?
Thither, whither because Hamlet wanted to send his uncle, he would
not kill him when he found him at prayers. If this is so, the farce of
spiritual ministration to the condemned criminal might as well be
abolished. If it is not so, then, as the Prince of Denmark remarks on
the above-mentioned occasion, to put him to death is “hire and salary,
not revenge.” Hanging seems to be infinitely too bad or too good for
a being who, like Michael Cassio, has “ a soul to be saved.” If a man
dies as a dog, hang a murderer like a dog, by all means. But if not,
how then? Could secondary punishment be tried, with the under-
standing that, in case of its failure as a preventive measure, the stronger
remedy of hemp should be reverted to P
ENGLISH PLAYS AND ERENCH CRITICS.
We cite this from the Paris Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph:—
“ In the Petit Journal of to-day I read that Mr. Webster, of the Adelphi, and his
‘ favourite interpreters of Shakspeare,’ have taken twelve places in the steamer
from London to Boulogne, and two special carriages—deux wagons spieiaux—in the
train to Paris, and are about to perform here. The first performance will be the
Maid of Lyons, and then Othello, Lear, As You, Like It, and Hamlet. Fechter has
been offered thirty napoleons a night to join the expedition. The critic, whose
; article I quote, winds up by saying, • Let Mr. Webster and his twelve artists come,
and Shakspeare and Lonn Byron and Sheridan Knowles, and Garrick, and James,
and all the British host! We shall be in our staU, ready to welcome this demonstra-
tion of English genius, and to call out the usual expression of success, ‘ All right! ’ ’
Shakspeare we know, and Lord Byron we know, but wbo is
James ? Iu the “ British host ” of novelists the name is not unknown,
but the dramatic works of James by no means are familiar to us, After
a play by “ Williams,” it would rather be a novelty to see a farce by
James ; and we hope that Mu. Webster, when be returns from Paris,
will let us have this treat. If be does so, like our French friend, “ we
shall be in our stall,” and ready to applaud the success of the per-
formance by shouting out, as usual in our theatres, “ All right! ”
Horticultural.
A Cultivated Horticulturist writes to ask us, “ On what he can
graft a Lapsus Linguce, or slip of a tongue ? ” Cultivated H. had
better wait for the London Season, and select some fine flowery speech.
Practical Gardener is fitting up a new bouse, and wants to know
what pictures be could put in his drawing-room suitable to bis every-
day work F We ’ll tell him ; “ The Fake’s Progress.”