DOI Heft:
April 6, 1867
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16879#0142
!
!
I
i
i
April 6. 1867.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
135
NATURE AND ART.
A COLLOQUY ON THE CAT.
General Jobbernowl. Mr. Jones.
Jones. If Mr. Otway’s Amendment in Committee on
the Mutiny Bill had been carried, it would have put an end
to corporal punishment in the Army during the time of
peace. What then?
Jobbernowl. Sir, if Hogging in the Army were abolished,
the Army would be demoralised, and go to the deuce.
Can’t, do without it. Sir. Civilians may talk ; but we can’t
do wiihout it, Sir—can’t do without it.
Jones. As a civilian, of course, I speak with due diffi-
dence. But is the British Soldier, generally, a fellow that
can be restrained only by fear of the lash ?
Job. Can’t do without it, Sir—can’t do without it.
Jones. But, my dear General, fear—the fear of bodily
pain—is that the sort of feeling to restrain a man whose
business consists in exposing his flesh to be lacerated and
his bones to be shattered ?
Job. All’s one for that; can’t do without it—can’t do
without it.
Jones. Well, I don’t know, but I should have thought
that a man who could only be got to behave himself by
the terror of the cat, must be a good-for-nothing fellow.
Job. Can’t do without it.
Jones. Can’t you do without such fellows ? Hadn’t you
better get rid of them? Are there so many scoundrels in
the rank and file of the British xArmy, that the cat is neces-
sary to keep the Army together ?
Job. Can’t do without it, Sir.
Jones. Well, but then, if that is so, the British Army is
worse than the British Rascalry, the British Felonry, the
British Rogues and Thieves. Among convicts the cat-
o’-nine-tails is reserved for the exceptional punishment of
cruel and cowardly garotters.
Job. Can’t do without it, Sir, for all that. Discipline,
Sir, discipline must.be maintained. Can’t do without it.
Jones. Well, it certainly does seem odd to me. Flogging
is held to be too bad for any but the worst of criminals,
and yet you can’t do without it in the honourable pro-
fession of arms.
Job. No, Sir; no. Can’t—can’t do without it.
Jo?ies. When Mr. Otway lost his Amendment, lie made
not a bad joke. He “congratulated the Government on
the success of their whip.”
j Job. All I can say, Sir, is—can’t do without it.
Pedestrian. “That’s an Extraordinary Looking Dog, my Boy. What
do you Call him?” Il y a Close et Clothes.—After all, Lord Derby,
Boy. “ Eust of all he wek’ a Grey’ound, Sir, an’ ’is Name wa^ ‘Fly,’ when he makes the mistake of giving £10 a-year to Mr.
an’ then they cut ’is Ears an’ Tail off, an’ made a Masti’ Dog 'on ’im, Young is only doing with his Pensions what he has been
an’ now ’is Name’s ‘ Lion ! ’ ” I doing with his Bills—stealing the other side’s Clothes.
PUNCH'S ESSENCE OP PARLIAMENT.
However slowly the Reform Question may be advancing, it seems
to be making safe progress. And in the meantime we get good
speeches. Three capital ones, by the three best orators in the House,
have adorned the debate on the Second Reading. This was moved on
Monday, 25th March. Mr. Gladstone led off, with an elaborate attack
; upon the measure. It may suit Members of Parliament to tell their
tales half-a-dozen times, but it does not suit Mr. Punch, and as he has
already stated, in far terser language than that of the speaker, all the
Gladstonian objections to the Bill, he will not recapitulate them. “ We
must make,” Mr. G. said, “ the best of the measure before us, but the
prospect is very discouraging.” He argued, at great length, and with
much earnestness, to show how much the House ought to be dis-
couraged. Finally, he demanded a Lodger Franchise, something to
prevent very poor householders from being used eorruptly, and sur-
render of the Dual Yote. If these were conceded, he thought that
though a Heavy Task was before them, the Bill might be allowed to go
into Committee.
Mr. Hardy, Member for the less intellectual part of Oxford Uni-
versity, defended the Bill, and declined to recognise Mr. Gladstone’s
right to speak for all the Opposition. This bold course was not so
bold as it appeared, for at the great Liberal meeting at Mr. Glad-
stone’s, when that gentleman advocated a smash at the Bill, there was
a very marked dissent. A great many Liberals want the question
' settled, and do not care who settles it. It is natural that Lord
Russell and Mr. Gladstone should care very much.
Among various speakers was the young Lord Amberley, who
made his maiden speech, and has yet his mark to make. He must not
■ put his hands under his coat-tails, and talk without action or passion
in his present stage of Parliamentary development. The House was
kind to the .\ouug nobleman, but was not impressed.
Mr. Roebuck supported the Second Reading, but disclaimed any
Lea of improving the character of the House, which he believed to be
a very wise assembly. He denied that there were any “ natural rights”
to vole—right was the creation of law. But a large number of re-
spectable persons wished for votes, and ought to have them. But not
the uneducated, not the vicious. He reproved Mr. Gladstone’s
intense hostility, and politely recommended the Government not to be
frightened by Pettifogging Cant.
Sir John Karslake assured him that the Government would not
be frightened at anything.
Arthur Wellesley Peel, youngest son of the great Sir Robert,
will please accept Mr. Punch’s congratulations on his personal appear-
ance and on his style of speech. This gentleman will do. He talked
good sense, and was for settling the question this year.
Tuesday. Sir Roondell Palmer dissected the Bill, ably, and was
replied to, if not answered, by Sir John Rolt. Mr. Harvey Lewis
made the good point that London was practically left out of the Bill.
The Metropolis now possessed twice the wealth and population it had
in 1832, yet nothing in the way of increased representation was olfered,
and the Lodgers were excluded.
Mr. Bright then assailed the Bill, and his speech, thoroughly
good-humoured, was a capital thing to hear. He introduced excellent
fun, and the way in which he compared the Government to the
Bechuanas (a tribe discovered by the great and good man as to whose
fate we are still in painful suspense), who are stingy to the last decree,
but ostentatious to a remarkable extent—whose chief, when asked for
food, said, “ Behold an Ox ! ” and it was only a miserable goat—was
true comedy, and drew roars from all sides. He would not be intolerant
!
I
i
i
April 6. 1867.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
135
NATURE AND ART.
A COLLOQUY ON THE CAT.
General Jobbernowl. Mr. Jones.
Jones. If Mr. Otway’s Amendment in Committee on
the Mutiny Bill had been carried, it would have put an end
to corporal punishment in the Army during the time of
peace. What then?
Jobbernowl. Sir, if Hogging in the Army were abolished,
the Army would be demoralised, and go to the deuce.
Can’t, do without it. Sir. Civilians may talk ; but we can’t
do wiihout it, Sir—can’t do without it.
Jones. As a civilian, of course, I speak with due diffi-
dence. But is the British Soldier, generally, a fellow that
can be restrained only by fear of the lash ?
Job. Can’t do without it, Sir—can’t do without it.
Jones. But, my dear General, fear—the fear of bodily
pain—is that the sort of feeling to restrain a man whose
business consists in exposing his flesh to be lacerated and
his bones to be shattered ?
Job. All’s one for that; can’t do without it—can’t do
without it.
Jones. Well, I don’t know, but I should have thought
that a man who could only be got to behave himself by
the terror of the cat, must be a good-for-nothing fellow.
Job. Can’t do without it.
Jones. Can’t you do without such fellows ? Hadn’t you
better get rid of them? Are there so many scoundrels in
the rank and file of the British xArmy, that the cat is neces-
sary to keep the Army together ?
Job. Can’t do without it, Sir.
Jones. Well, but then, if that is so, the British Army is
worse than the British Rascalry, the British Felonry, the
British Rogues and Thieves. Among convicts the cat-
o’-nine-tails is reserved for the exceptional punishment of
cruel and cowardly garotters.
Job. Can’t do without it, Sir, for all that. Discipline,
Sir, discipline must.be maintained. Can’t do without it.
Jones. Well, it certainly does seem odd to me. Flogging
is held to be too bad for any but the worst of criminals,
and yet you can’t do without it in the honourable pro-
fession of arms.
Job. No, Sir; no. Can’t—can’t do without it.
Jo?ies. When Mr. Otway lost his Amendment, lie made
not a bad joke. He “congratulated the Government on
the success of their whip.”
j Job. All I can say, Sir, is—can’t do without it.
Pedestrian. “That’s an Extraordinary Looking Dog, my Boy. What
do you Call him?” Il y a Close et Clothes.—After all, Lord Derby,
Boy. “ Eust of all he wek’ a Grey’ound, Sir, an’ ’is Name wa^ ‘Fly,’ when he makes the mistake of giving £10 a-year to Mr.
an’ then they cut ’is Ears an’ Tail off, an’ made a Masti’ Dog 'on ’im, Young is only doing with his Pensions what he has been
an’ now ’is Name’s ‘ Lion ! ’ ” I doing with his Bills—stealing the other side’s Clothes.
PUNCH'S ESSENCE OP PARLIAMENT.
However slowly the Reform Question may be advancing, it seems
to be making safe progress. And in the meantime we get good
speeches. Three capital ones, by the three best orators in the House,
have adorned the debate on the Second Reading. This was moved on
Monday, 25th March. Mr. Gladstone led off, with an elaborate attack
; upon the measure. It may suit Members of Parliament to tell their
tales half-a-dozen times, but it does not suit Mr. Punch, and as he has
already stated, in far terser language than that of the speaker, all the
Gladstonian objections to the Bill, he will not recapitulate them. “ We
must make,” Mr. G. said, “ the best of the measure before us, but the
prospect is very discouraging.” He argued, at great length, and with
much earnestness, to show how much the House ought to be dis-
couraged. Finally, he demanded a Lodger Franchise, something to
prevent very poor householders from being used eorruptly, and sur-
render of the Dual Yote. If these were conceded, he thought that
though a Heavy Task was before them, the Bill might be allowed to go
into Committee.
Mr. Hardy, Member for the less intellectual part of Oxford Uni-
versity, defended the Bill, and declined to recognise Mr. Gladstone’s
right to speak for all the Opposition. This bold course was not so
bold as it appeared, for at the great Liberal meeting at Mr. Glad-
stone’s, when that gentleman advocated a smash at the Bill, there was
a very marked dissent. A great many Liberals want the question
' settled, and do not care who settles it. It is natural that Lord
Russell and Mr. Gladstone should care very much.
Among various speakers was the young Lord Amberley, who
made his maiden speech, and has yet his mark to make. He must not
■ put his hands under his coat-tails, and talk without action or passion
in his present stage of Parliamentary development. The House was
kind to the .\ouug nobleman, but was not impressed.
Mr. Roebuck supported the Second Reading, but disclaimed any
Lea of improving the character of the House, which he believed to be
a very wise assembly. He denied that there were any “ natural rights”
to vole—right was the creation of law. But a large number of re-
spectable persons wished for votes, and ought to have them. But not
the uneducated, not the vicious. He reproved Mr. Gladstone’s
intense hostility, and politely recommended the Government not to be
frightened by Pettifogging Cant.
Sir John Karslake assured him that the Government would not
be frightened at anything.
Arthur Wellesley Peel, youngest son of the great Sir Robert,
will please accept Mr. Punch’s congratulations on his personal appear-
ance and on his style of speech. This gentleman will do. He talked
good sense, and was for settling the question this year.
Tuesday. Sir Roondell Palmer dissected the Bill, ably, and was
replied to, if not answered, by Sir John Rolt. Mr. Harvey Lewis
made the good point that London was practically left out of the Bill.
The Metropolis now possessed twice the wealth and population it had
in 1832, yet nothing in the way of increased representation was olfered,
and the Lodgers were excluded.
Mr. Bright then assailed the Bill, and his speech, thoroughly
good-humoured, was a capital thing to hear. He introduced excellent
fun, and the way in which he compared the Government to the
Bechuanas (a tribe discovered by the great and good man as to whose
fate we are still in painful suspense), who are stingy to the last decree,
but ostentatious to a remarkable extent—whose chief, when asked for
food, said, “ Behold an Ox ! ” and it was only a miserable goat—was
true comedy, and drew roars from all sides. He would not be intolerant