DOI Heft:
October 6, 1866
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16878#0147
October 6, 1866.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
139
CONVOLVULUS SEASIDEIENSIS.
“This delicate Annual has been seen in great Abundance this
Autumn all round the Coast. It Flourishes best in Exposed Situations,
and during Inclement, Windy Weather.”—Vide “ Jolly Gardeners’ Chronicle.”
A SHOOTING QUEEN.
The Post lately contained the announcement following :
“ Tlie King and Queen of Denmark are expected to arrive at
Marlborough House in the course of the ensuing week, from Den-
mark. Their Majesties will remain a fortnight in London, after
which they go to Sandringham for pheasant shooting.”
What, both of them P So it seems that the Queen op
Denmark is a sportswoman. As such we hope that she
will set an example in pheasant shooting; go out and kill
pheasants fairly, and give no countenance to slaughtering
them in a battue.
LAY OF A LOAFER.
I wish I were a King,
But one without a throne;
A heavy Crown is not the thing
I wish to call my own.
’Tis not a reigning Bex
That I would wish to be :
I’d rather have prefixed an “ ex”
Unto my Majesty.
Let me, a King sans care,
Retired from business, dwell,
First having taken dashed good care
My nest to feather well.
Ye Sovereigns dispossessed,
Italian, German too.
Three meals a day, and perfect rest,
Oh, how I envy you !
Figures of Fact and Figures of Speech.
We don’t know any Manchester Demonstration so con-
clusive as the Manchester Guardian's Demonstration that
the ground on which the open-air League Meeting was
held in that city, could not possibly have contained more
than 50,000 people, packed as close as human beings can
be packed, and that it did not, as a matter of fact, contain
half that number on that particular occasion. So, between
the Star’s 130,000 and. the Telegraph’s 40,000, if we split the
difference, we shall still be enormously above the mark in
gauging the Manchester assemblage by the League’s sole
standard—numbers.
!
A DEBATE OE THE FUTURE.
Imperial Parliament. Monday, June 21, 1876.
The House met at four o’clock. It being the Hebrew Chaplain’s
turn to read prayers, that ceremony was performed by the Rev. Dr.
Adler, whose magnificent intonation excited much admiration.
Petitions being no longer presented since the Manufacture of those
articles was suppressed, the Speaker, the Right Hon. S. H. Walpole,
who had been unanimously elected for his great knowledge of Parlia-
mentary practice and for his affable and hydraulic manners, called for
any Questions which Members desired to put.
In answer to Lord Stanley, Sir John Bright said that he was
furnishing the British Army as rapidly as possible with the new fulmi-
nating powder, and. as War Minister he was glad to say that lie
believed the novel invention would be most destructive, though, of
course, as a Member of the Cabinet, he trusted the war would be
avoided.
. In answer to Lord John Manners, Sir Ernest Jones (the Soli-
citor-General) said that it was the intention of Government to prosecute
thepersons who had held a riotous political meeting on Shakspeare
Hill (late Primrose Hill) and had destroyed the oak. He regretted that
Conservatives should so misconduct themselves, but they must be
taught to respect the law. {Cheers.)
In answer to Mr. Whalley, Sir Goldwin Smith (the Home
Secretary) said that the endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood
m Ireland was working exceedingly well, and that Her Majesty’s
Government was not inclined to disturb existing arrangements.
On the orders of the day being taken,
Lord Cranborne moved the Second Reading of the Bill for giving
votes to Paupers in Workhouses.
Mr. Odgers moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months. He condemned the revolutionary conduct of the Tory party.
The franchise had been made quite extensive enough by the Reform
Act of 1867, and he should oppose any endeavour to give political
power to those who were notoriously unfit for its exercise. To have
become a pauper implied, in the majority of cases, either indolence,
incapacity, or immorality, and either of these conditions disqualified a
man from using a vote rightly.
General Peel said that the honourable Member talked cussed
nonsense. {Order, order) Well, he withdrew the expression, and
would substitute unimaginable bosh. Many persons had become
paupers from no fault of their own, but from the working of a system
which they desired to be able to alter. The Honourable Member had
no sense of religion, or he would not speak in that way of the poor.
Many of them were very jolly chaps.
Mr. Beales said that this might be so, but jollity was not, per se,
a qualification for electoral rights. Gravity and sobriety were better
claims. The course of the so-called Conservative party reflected little
credit upon them, and they would not be allowed to overthrow our
venerated institutions. Lord Disraeli had said hi the House of
Lords {Order, order)-in another place, that we were “drifting into
oligarchy.” It was perfectly untrue, but oligarchy was better than
anarchy, and he for one would be no Anacharsis.
Lord John Manners said that when the Premier was simply Lord
Amberley he had used very different language from that of his present
subordinates and supporters, but ever since he had taken . his seat
beside his venerable father, as a peer of the realm, he had hidden all
true liberality in his gilded coronet. Even Earl Gladstone had
more advanced views, and he wished that noble Earl were in the
Cabinet, instead of confusing himself with translating Confucius.
Mr. Bubb deprecated personalities, which he observed always came
from the aristocracy. Earl Gladstone had done enough when, as
Governor-General of India, he had re-arranged the finances of that
Empire in such a way as to make India prosperous, and provide for
the speedy extinction of the National debt, which was now incon-
siderable.
General Brownlow Knox said he did not care much about this
Bill, but as an old and veteran soldier he would ask the Secretary for
War why he refused votes to Chelsea and Greenwich pensioners.
Sir John Bright replied that he wished the honourable and gallant
Member would talk only of what he understood, though at the cost of
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
139
CONVOLVULUS SEASIDEIENSIS.
“This delicate Annual has been seen in great Abundance this
Autumn all round the Coast. It Flourishes best in Exposed Situations,
and during Inclement, Windy Weather.”—Vide “ Jolly Gardeners’ Chronicle.”
A SHOOTING QUEEN.
The Post lately contained the announcement following :
“ Tlie King and Queen of Denmark are expected to arrive at
Marlborough House in the course of the ensuing week, from Den-
mark. Their Majesties will remain a fortnight in London, after
which they go to Sandringham for pheasant shooting.”
What, both of them P So it seems that the Queen op
Denmark is a sportswoman. As such we hope that she
will set an example in pheasant shooting; go out and kill
pheasants fairly, and give no countenance to slaughtering
them in a battue.
LAY OF A LOAFER.
I wish I were a King,
But one without a throne;
A heavy Crown is not the thing
I wish to call my own.
’Tis not a reigning Bex
That I would wish to be :
I’d rather have prefixed an “ ex”
Unto my Majesty.
Let me, a King sans care,
Retired from business, dwell,
First having taken dashed good care
My nest to feather well.
Ye Sovereigns dispossessed,
Italian, German too.
Three meals a day, and perfect rest,
Oh, how I envy you !
Figures of Fact and Figures of Speech.
We don’t know any Manchester Demonstration so con-
clusive as the Manchester Guardian's Demonstration that
the ground on which the open-air League Meeting was
held in that city, could not possibly have contained more
than 50,000 people, packed as close as human beings can
be packed, and that it did not, as a matter of fact, contain
half that number on that particular occasion. So, between
the Star’s 130,000 and. the Telegraph’s 40,000, if we split the
difference, we shall still be enormously above the mark in
gauging the Manchester assemblage by the League’s sole
standard—numbers.
!
A DEBATE OE THE FUTURE.
Imperial Parliament. Monday, June 21, 1876.
The House met at four o’clock. It being the Hebrew Chaplain’s
turn to read prayers, that ceremony was performed by the Rev. Dr.
Adler, whose magnificent intonation excited much admiration.
Petitions being no longer presented since the Manufacture of those
articles was suppressed, the Speaker, the Right Hon. S. H. Walpole,
who had been unanimously elected for his great knowledge of Parlia-
mentary practice and for his affable and hydraulic manners, called for
any Questions which Members desired to put.
In answer to Lord Stanley, Sir John Bright said that he was
furnishing the British Army as rapidly as possible with the new fulmi-
nating powder, and. as War Minister he was glad to say that lie
believed the novel invention would be most destructive, though, of
course, as a Member of the Cabinet, he trusted the war would be
avoided.
. In answer to Lord John Manners, Sir Ernest Jones (the Soli-
citor-General) said that it was the intention of Government to prosecute
thepersons who had held a riotous political meeting on Shakspeare
Hill (late Primrose Hill) and had destroyed the oak. He regretted that
Conservatives should so misconduct themselves, but they must be
taught to respect the law. {Cheers.)
In answer to Mr. Whalley, Sir Goldwin Smith (the Home
Secretary) said that the endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood
m Ireland was working exceedingly well, and that Her Majesty’s
Government was not inclined to disturb existing arrangements.
On the orders of the day being taken,
Lord Cranborne moved the Second Reading of the Bill for giving
votes to Paupers in Workhouses.
Mr. Odgers moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six
months. He condemned the revolutionary conduct of the Tory party.
The franchise had been made quite extensive enough by the Reform
Act of 1867, and he should oppose any endeavour to give political
power to those who were notoriously unfit for its exercise. To have
become a pauper implied, in the majority of cases, either indolence,
incapacity, or immorality, and either of these conditions disqualified a
man from using a vote rightly.
General Peel said that the honourable Member talked cussed
nonsense. {Order, order) Well, he withdrew the expression, and
would substitute unimaginable bosh. Many persons had become
paupers from no fault of their own, but from the working of a system
which they desired to be able to alter. The Honourable Member had
no sense of religion, or he would not speak in that way of the poor.
Many of them were very jolly chaps.
Mr. Beales said that this might be so, but jollity was not, per se,
a qualification for electoral rights. Gravity and sobriety were better
claims. The course of the so-called Conservative party reflected little
credit upon them, and they would not be allowed to overthrow our
venerated institutions. Lord Disraeli had said hi the House of
Lords {Order, order)-in another place, that we were “drifting into
oligarchy.” It was perfectly untrue, but oligarchy was better than
anarchy, and he for one would be no Anacharsis.
Lord John Manners said that when the Premier was simply Lord
Amberley he had used very different language from that of his present
subordinates and supporters, but ever since he had taken . his seat
beside his venerable father, as a peer of the realm, he had hidden all
true liberality in his gilded coronet. Even Earl Gladstone had
more advanced views, and he wished that noble Earl were in the
Cabinet, instead of confusing himself with translating Confucius.
Mr. Bubb deprecated personalities, which he observed always came
from the aristocracy. Earl Gladstone had done enough when, as
Governor-General of India, he had re-arranged the finances of that
Empire in such a way as to make India prosperous, and provide for
the speedy extinction of the National debt, which was now incon-
siderable.
General Brownlow Knox said he did not care much about this
Bill, but as an old and veteran soldier he would ask the Secretary for
War why he refused votes to Chelsea and Greenwich pensioners.
Sir John Bright replied that he wished the honourable and gallant
Member would talk only of what he understood, though at the cost of