DOI Heft:
January 26, 1867
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16879#0039
January 26, 1867.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
31
A QUIET SMOKE.
Charlotte [in gasps). “Oh, Laura !—do you Think—it was Tobacco—We took out of Willy’s Box?—I believe I’m—Dying!!”
ANTI-BIUGHT ANECDOTES.
The principal business of the smaller Conservatives, while kept in
the dark by the large ones, is to invent stories against Mr. John
! Bright. But most of them bring the concoctors to grief, as was
notably the case with Mr. Garth, on whom Mr. Bright laid the hands
of vengeance somewhat heavily. Moved with compassion for the
I troubles of his fellow-creatures, Mr. Punch subjoins a series of anti-
Bright anecdotes, which Conservative writers may use with perfect
safety, and which have quite as much to do with the question of Reform
as any other allegations against Mr. Bright’s personal character.
They are labelled in the pleasing American fashion.
His Youth.
When young, John Bright had many fastidious tastes. It was with
great difficulty that he could ever be brought to eat an Orange. This
un-boylike and un-English hostility to a beautiful fruit may be thought
to have betokened his hatred for the Orangemen of Ireland, and her
i landlords.
His Indolence.
John Bright was always an exceedingly idle young man, and his
friends could seldom persuade him to take the needful amount of exer-
cise. Pressed hard to take a walk by a Quaker relative, who said, “ It
has come to me, John, that thou art unwise not to pay. more regard to
health. Dost not know that exercise is demanded by the constitu-
tion ? ” Bright replied, scornfully, “ Bother the Constitution!” Fully,
deeply, wickedly has he acted up to the spirit of that deadly double-
er^ndre.
His Low Tastes.
Although Mr. Bright’s family was most respectable, and he might,
.ad he pleased, have been a constant visitor at the best houses in the
ricinity, he was remarkable, when a young man, for eschewing such inter-
course. We have it on the best authority that one evening when he had
been invited to a tea-party, after 'which there was to be an interesting
discussion on Pre-adamite fossils, he absented himself, and was detected
leaning over a wall and amusing himself by observing some dirty lads
playing at skittles. And this was “ the father to the man ” who pre-
sumes to talk of the shortcomings of the aristocracy !
His Brutality.
Small things show us a man’s character better than large ones,
because the former accidentally reveal the truth, while the latter are
the result of premeditation. Bright’s brutality was manifested at a
very early period of his evil life. A Eriend of his was endeavouring to
induce him to play at leap-frog, a diversion which though not enjoined
by the Quaker doctrine is not inhibited to Friends of any age or
obesity. After several refusals to “give’’ his companion “ a back,”
and the latter continuing to urge the claims of sport, John Bright
exclaimed, suiting the action to the word, “I’ll give thee a back-hander,”
and. the unfortunate Friend went head-over-heels.
His Falsehood.
We have so repeatedly exposed the unblushing falsehoods of Mr.
John Bright that the task becomes wearisome. But we fear that the
line will go on to the crack of doom. The habit is ingrained in his
nature, and was in full efflorescence at an early period. We have obtained
from an aged servant in the Bright family the following story which
may be relied on, ‘though we suppress her name, that we may not
expose her to the vengeance which the un-English agitator is fond of
taking on old women. His brother Jacob had a favourite knife, which
on one occasion he missed. The poor boy demanded of his brother
John whether he saw the cherished article anywhere about. “ No,”
was the answer. Yet at that moment it was in Bright’s closed hand.
He did not see it—such was his miserable subterfuge. Is it not like
him F
His Treachery.
At the age of sixteen, John Bright, though brought up amid a strict
sect, was not blind to the charms of the other sex. He was not an
unwilling companion of young Quaker ladies in their walks, and
perhaps was even then cultivating that feminine habit of re-iterated
impertinence which so signally distinguishes him. Be this as it may
upon one occasion a young male Friend asked him if he knew whether
a certain young lady, whose name we would certainly introduce it we
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
31
A QUIET SMOKE.
Charlotte [in gasps). “Oh, Laura !—do you Think—it was Tobacco—We took out of Willy’s Box?—I believe I’m—Dying!!”
ANTI-BIUGHT ANECDOTES.
The principal business of the smaller Conservatives, while kept in
the dark by the large ones, is to invent stories against Mr. John
! Bright. But most of them bring the concoctors to grief, as was
notably the case with Mr. Garth, on whom Mr. Bright laid the hands
of vengeance somewhat heavily. Moved with compassion for the
I troubles of his fellow-creatures, Mr. Punch subjoins a series of anti-
Bright anecdotes, which Conservative writers may use with perfect
safety, and which have quite as much to do with the question of Reform
as any other allegations against Mr. Bright’s personal character.
They are labelled in the pleasing American fashion.
His Youth.
When young, John Bright had many fastidious tastes. It was with
great difficulty that he could ever be brought to eat an Orange. This
un-boylike and un-English hostility to a beautiful fruit may be thought
to have betokened his hatred for the Orangemen of Ireland, and her
i landlords.
His Indolence.
John Bright was always an exceedingly idle young man, and his
friends could seldom persuade him to take the needful amount of exer-
cise. Pressed hard to take a walk by a Quaker relative, who said, “ It
has come to me, John, that thou art unwise not to pay. more regard to
health. Dost not know that exercise is demanded by the constitu-
tion ? ” Bright replied, scornfully, “ Bother the Constitution!” Fully,
deeply, wickedly has he acted up to the spirit of that deadly double-
er^ndre.
His Low Tastes.
Although Mr. Bright’s family was most respectable, and he might,
.ad he pleased, have been a constant visitor at the best houses in the
ricinity, he was remarkable, when a young man, for eschewing such inter-
course. We have it on the best authority that one evening when he had
been invited to a tea-party, after 'which there was to be an interesting
discussion on Pre-adamite fossils, he absented himself, and was detected
leaning over a wall and amusing himself by observing some dirty lads
playing at skittles. And this was “ the father to the man ” who pre-
sumes to talk of the shortcomings of the aristocracy !
His Brutality.
Small things show us a man’s character better than large ones,
because the former accidentally reveal the truth, while the latter are
the result of premeditation. Bright’s brutality was manifested at a
very early period of his evil life. A Eriend of his was endeavouring to
induce him to play at leap-frog, a diversion which though not enjoined
by the Quaker doctrine is not inhibited to Friends of any age or
obesity. After several refusals to “give’’ his companion “ a back,”
and the latter continuing to urge the claims of sport, John Bright
exclaimed, suiting the action to the word, “I’ll give thee a back-hander,”
and. the unfortunate Friend went head-over-heels.
His Falsehood.
We have so repeatedly exposed the unblushing falsehoods of Mr.
John Bright that the task becomes wearisome. But we fear that the
line will go on to the crack of doom. The habit is ingrained in his
nature, and was in full efflorescence at an early period. We have obtained
from an aged servant in the Bright family the following story which
may be relied on, ‘though we suppress her name, that we may not
expose her to the vengeance which the un-English agitator is fond of
taking on old women. His brother Jacob had a favourite knife, which
on one occasion he missed. The poor boy demanded of his brother
John whether he saw the cherished article anywhere about. “ No,”
was the answer. Yet at that moment it was in Bright’s closed hand.
He did not see it—such was his miserable subterfuge. Is it not like
him F
His Treachery.
At the age of sixteen, John Bright, though brought up amid a strict
sect, was not blind to the charms of the other sex. He was not an
unwilling companion of young Quaker ladies in their walks, and
perhaps was even then cultivating that feminine habit of re-iterated
impertinence which so signally distinguishes him. Be this as it may
upon one occasion a young male Friend asked him if he knew whether
a certain young lady, whose name we would certainly introduce it we