Punch: Punch (50.1866)

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[April 28, 1866.

174

PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

nolite is a mineral, called
also (says Ure) axinite,
because its crystals re-
semble au axe. Hatchet-
throwing in Parliament
recommenced on Monday,
April 16. The Debate on
the Franchise Bill was
resumed, and Mr. Ma-
guire led off with a calm
clever speech for the mea-
sure. Ulick, Lord Dun-
kellin, who is the son of
Lord Clanricarde, and
who was taken prisoner in
the Crimea, and graciously
released by the Emperor,
delivered himself fluently
against the F. B., though
he is a Liberal. He was
not going to swallow the
powder of franchise in the
faith of the promise of the
jam of distribution. Ulick
is a bachelor, or would
know that a sensible
Mamma gives the jam
before the powder, where-
by the infantine tongue
scarcely perceives the
nasty taste.

Mu. W. E. Forster, who is an advanced Liberal as well as a
Minister, advocated the F. B. as a Conservative measure. He said one
thing which will be quoted. Ridiculing the Conservatives for their
terror of Mr Bright, Mr Forster compared him to the mechanic
! actor in the Midsummer Night’s Dream, and recommended him to relieve
their minds by showing that he was “ no lion, but Snug, the Joiner.”

Mr. M'Kenna, of Yougbal, opposed the F. B. as a leap into the
dark. Sir John Simeon supported it, describing the amendment as a
vote of waut of confidence; Mr. James Lowther, Member for York,
thought the Bill dangerous and unsound—the latter a genuine York-
shireman’s worst word, and Sir Francis Crossley, an employer of
much labour, said that the people, being well off, were reasonably
content with the present state of things, but expected that the Govern-
ment would stand by the Bill.

Mr. Adderley, opposing the Bill, said a good many severe things,
which were rapturously applauded by the Conservatives. He said that
Mr. Bright’s political life had been one of ceaseless, childlike maun-
dering against the landlords. Now, whatever may be thought of
Mr. Bright’s opinions, his method of expressing them is perhaps
worse described by the word maundering than by any other word which
is the property of Her Majesty. We should as soon think of saying
that a bull came maundering on against the tauridor.

Mr. Layard, Minister, answered him. The Opposition behaved
extremely vulgarly, laughing and jeering through Mr. Layard’s
speech, and he was obliged several times to rebuke their “ violent
noise.” But he gave them some good facers, aud particularly demanded
with what grace could men who bribed at elections abuse the working
classes for the venality their accusers had taught. He thought that if the
F. B. were passed, the question would be settled for “several” years.
Webster says that “ several ” means more than two, but not very many.

Sir Hugh Cairns, the eminent Irish lawyer, then delivered a long
and effective oration against the Bill, and said that a complete measure
ought to be passed which should settle the question for Our life time.
Whose life time, Sir Hugh? You, Hugh, were born in 1819, and
have, we hope, at least forty years before you. But some of Us were
born yesterday, as may be seen by the first column of the Times. Are
they to look for eighty years’cessation of Reform movements? We
should like to know what you were good enough to mean.

With Sir Hugh’s speech ended the third night—a dull one—of the
great F. B. debate.

Here it may be convenient to mention that the Lords have been
instructed by the Earl of Derby, K.G., or Knowing General, not to
offend the Catholics and the Irish by throwing out the Oaths Bill. His
Lordship said that he was not desirous of provoking a collision by
rejecting a measure which had been passed by an overwhelming majo-
rity of the Commons. Quite right. If a Bill should come up—say a
Franchise Bill—passed by a very small majority, “ will it live ? ”

Tuesday. The Brewer’s Dray stopped the way. Sir Fitzroy Kelly,
who has addicted himself to getting up debates on the Malt-Tax—we
have no idea why, nor, we dare say, has he—refused to give up his
nonsense, even for the sake of the Great Reform debate. But we
cannot be angry with him—in fact, we are much obliged to him, for

amid the agricultural whine for the repeal of the duty, came forth the
voice of the philosopher, John Stuart Mill.

He, as usual, took a new and large view, and protested against re-
moving a productive tax, instead of applying its produce in diminution
of the Debt which we leave to our children. He reminded his hearers
that our Coal store is wasting away, and that when it shall be exhausted
we shall be unable to compete with other manufacturing countries. But
this country “ was at present richer and more prosperous than any country
which they knew or read of, and it could without any material incon-
venience or privation set aside several millions a year for the discharge
of this important duty to their descendants.” And he spoke out nobly
in the interest of posterity, and because his eloquent words should be
read by those who do not wade through dull debates, and because
Mr. Punch's pages are the only record that will reach remote posterity,
Mr. Punch, contrary to his custom, quotes.

“There might be some who would say, in the words of the old jest, ‘Why should
we trouble ourselves for posteiity? Posterity has done nothing for us ?' Was it
true that posterity had done nothing for us ? He maintained that whatever had
been done for mankind by the idea of posterity, by a philanthropic regard for
posterity, by a sense of duty to posterity, and even by the less noble but still pure
feeling of ambition to be remembered and thought well of by posterity, by the
founders of nations, and by those second founders of nations, the Reformers ; by
laws and institutions which caused f.-ee countries to be free, and well-governed
countries to be well-governed; by all the heroic lives that had been lived and deaths
that had been died in defence of freedom and in defiance of tyranny, from Marathon
and Salamis to Leipsic and Waterloo; by all those traditions of heroism and of
virtue of which the treasuries of nations were full; by all the schools and univer-
sities which had handed down to us the culture of past times and by that culture
itself; all this is amassed for us only because our ancestors have cared and taken
thought for posterity. We owe to it our great masters of thought—our Bacon, and
Newton, and Locke—our Shakspeare, Milton, and Wordsworth.”

There, read that. Electors of Westminster, and be proud of your
Man.

Such a speech made the work of the Minister easy, and Mr. Glad-
stone demolished the motion and its friends with a light hand. In
reference to the glorification of Beer, he said that it was a wholesome
liquor, but he could not regard it, as its idolators do, as an Evangelising
Power. The House rejected the motion for repeal by 235 to 150.

Wednesday. After malt, hops. Mr. Huddleston, an eloquent
lawyer, and Member for Canterbury, promoted a Bill for Preventing
Frauds in the Hop-trade. There is a pleasing habit among hop-vendors,
of putting not only inferior hops into the “ pockets ” supposed to con-
tain the best, but of substituting dirt, clav, and even metal. To defeat
this piece of mercantile ingenuity, Mr. Huddleston proposes to com-
pel certain marks to be ma le on the pocket, and to impose certain
penalties. For the honour of the British hop-grower, let it be said
that the above stratagems are chiefly employed after the article has left
his hands. Government did not oppose the Bill.

The Thames Navigation Bill, for the better government of the river,
was read a Second Time, and Mr. Denman made some strong remarks
on the abominable behaviour of steamboat captains at the University
boat-races. He also predicted a terrible accident, unless order were
taken with these reckless persons. It does seem very hard that for one
single hour on one single day, the stream cannot be kept for the Water-
Derby, the pet contest of the year, while there is not a race-course in
Euglaud where the ground is not kept religiously clear for the smallest
races and the greatest cads.

Thursday. The Oaths Bill went through Committee in the Lords,
and Lord Chelmsford observed that should the Queen make a Jew
Peer, their Lordships would certainly not _ think of requiring that his
Hebraic Lordship should take the Christian Oath. Lord Camoys, a
Catholic, made both a clever and a graceful speech in acknowledgment
of the removal of the last relic of intolerance.

Lord Chief Justice Lefroy, of Ireland, was born in 1776, and is
therefore niuety. Some persons think that he ought to resign, and
allege that he is too infirm for his duty. Others deny this, and state
that his fine faculties are virtually unimpaired. Lord Clanricarde
argued for the former, Lord Chelmsford for the latter, aud the subject
dropped. Punch, who hears everything, has heard that the L. C. J.
does not resign because he does not think any other Irish Judge worthy
to succeed him in his great office. There is also a party reason for his
holding on until the next appointment shall be in Tory hands.

The debate on the Franchise Bill was resumed. Mr. Graham,
Glasgow, supported, with skill. Lord Elcho made a long and dashing
speech against it, and, taking up the metaphor of the Cave of Adullam,
which had been described as the head-quarters of Mr. Horsman and
his friends, admitted that they distrusted Saul on the Treasury bench,
and his armour-bearer, Mr. Bright, and declared that the Adullamites
would come forth and deliver Israel from oppression. Are these the
days of King Oliver Cromwell or of Queen Victoria? Sir
William Hutt defended himself and the Bill, and Mr. Beresford
Hope attacked the latter as being of a swamping character.

Mr. Thomas Hughes made a very remarkable speech, in which he,
who is exceedingly well acquainted with the working class described
their habits of thought, their views on political economy, their obedience
to leadership, and their belief that the strong should remain with and
help the weak. Apply this information in aid of whatever argument