Punch (53.1867)

2

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[July 6, 1867.

DR. MANNING’S WHOLE HOG.

FASHIONABLE CHANGE OE HAIR.

lainly our friends the Roman
Catholics are not much
better off'for unanimity than
ourselves. There is now-
pending a controversy
amongst their theologians
about no less a matter than
the infallibility of the Pope ;
which is a cardinal point,
though one whereon the
Cardinals themselves are
not all agreed.

The disputants on one
side of this question main-
tain that the Pope is in-
fallible whensoever he lays
down the law. Those on
the other argue that he is
infallible only when he lays
down the law under certain
conditions, which they do
not exactly explain. Both
parties unite only in holding
that the Pope has whatever
infallibility he claims. He
is infallible when he says he
is. There was a certain very
great teller of stories—not
to say story-teller — accustomed especially to relate marvellous
anecdotes. He would sometimes preface a narrative by saying,
“ Now, mind, what I am now going to tell you is really true.”
Whenever he made that declaration, he expected to be believed ; and
what he stated was generally the fact. So, when the Pope premises
any edict with the notice, “ Now, mind you, I am speaking infallibly
this time,” then, at any rate, it seems, we' are to understand that his
Holiness is to be believed. But this is not satisfactory. It is not
every Papal Bull that is preceded by an attestation equivalent to the
assurance:—

“ Upon my word ’tis true !

And what ’ll you lay it’s a lie ? ”

So that, if such a warrant be needful to vouch a Bull infallible, the
Bull of many a Roman Pontiff may have been no better than an Irish
BuA

This doubt about infallibility is awkward. It is “ nuts ” to the Pro-
testant, and tends to keep Ritualists where they are—playing at Popery
without the Pope. No wonder, then, at the rumour embodied by a
contemporary in the following announcement:—

“ New Roman Catholic Dogma.—At a Meeting of the Eastern Churches, held
on Monday, the Very Reverend Arch-priest Popoff, Chaplain to the Roman Em-
bassy, in London, stated that he had been informed, on very high authority, that it
is the intention of the Roman Catholic authorities forthwith to promulgate another
new dogma—namely, the personal infallibility of the Pope, and that it was further
intended to enforce the adoption of the Romish liturgy everywhere.”

All you, above whose heads have rolled
Some years of observation,

In female fashions must behold
A wondrous alteration.

Red hair, in scorn, our bygone age
Called “ carrots,” and" did sneeze on ;
But now it has become the rage.

And carrots are in season.

To brew a diabolic drench

When hags of old thought proper,

“ Three ounces of a red-haired wench”
They threw into their copper.

Por then, indeed, red hair was thought
A fault as rank as treason;

But now it is adored and sought;

Por carrots are in season.

A dark peruke then graced the head
Of rufous damsel, shaven,

Or else she turned her tresses red,

By dyeing them, to raven.

But raven now has had its day,

And womankind agrees on
Transmuting hair the other way;

Since carrots are in season.

To Nature is a maiden fair
Por sable locks beholden ?

She bleaches first, then stains, her hair,
And makes the black all golden.

And can that artificial hue
Be put, mankind to please, on F
Apparently with no such view:

But carrots are in season.

Of native gold beneath a thatch
Dwell many charming creatures
But counterfeit no art can match
With heterogeneous features.

The way of Woman is a way
Inscrutable by reason :

And therefore all that we can say
Is, “ Carrots are in season.”

Ye girls who pretty carrots boast,

(Well may you who possess them !)

Of your fine carrots make the most,

And mind you nicely dress them,
Regardless of the wretched pun

Which geese may make, with ease, on
Hair soup and Crecy both in one.

Now carrots are in season.

The present assemblage of bishops in Rome will afford a convenient
opportunity for the declaration of this new dogma. It is, however,
needless if the Pope has already whatever infallibility he claims. He
has simply to say, “I claim infallibility for what I am about to state,
and hereby declare myself and my successors personally infallible.”
All that the bishops can do is to ratify the declaration of his Holiness
by a formal assent, which might be expressed in two words, Ita est, or,
at greater length, in the form of a chorus, such as :—

“ For he’s an infallible Doctor,

For he’s an infallible Doctor,

For he’s an infallible Doctor,

And so say all of us ! ”

“ Sic dicimus omnes nos” would, of course, be the actual phrase.
Well, then, however, there will be at last an end to the question which
has always puzzled mankind at large—“ What, as a distinctly existent
object, is your Infallible Church ? ” The edifice will at last have been
crowned, and the Pope will be in a position to say “ VTdglise c’est moi ! ” i
He will have gone the Entire Animal. Dr. Gumming would use !
another word.

In the meantime there is a doubt, even among the Papal clergy,
whether or no the Pope’s “ obiter dicta” are infallible. Protestants
will universally admit that they are quite as infallible as anything that
he ever says. Suppose the Pope were to observe, “This is a good
glass of wine.” They would be at all events ready to believe that he
made no mistake in that remark, particularly if they knew he had
delivered it, ex cathedra, at table.

HATS v. HEADS.

“ Mr. D. Griffith called attention to the present system by which Members
secured seats for the evening in the House. By Standing Order 85 any Member
present in the House at prayers was entitled to secure a place by affixing his name
to a seat, and by Standing Order 86, which was made on the 6th of April, 1835, no
Member's name might be affixed to any seat in the House before the hour of prayer.
Notwithstanding the latter order a practice had sprung up by which Members
attempted to secure places by leaving their cnrds upon the seats, trusting that the
courtesy of other Members would prevent their being occupied. That arrangement
having been declared irregular, by the highest authority in that House, it was sug-
gested that a place might be secured by the hat of a Member being left on the seat
before the hour of prayer, and that modification of the previous arrangement was
approved by the House, as it was presumed that when a Member left bis hat on a
seat he was engaged in the performance of duties within the precincts of the House.
To this arrangement the large majority of Honourable Members conformed them-
selves, but one Honourable Gentleman who sat near him bad been in the habit of
directly contravening the decision of tbe Right Honourable Gentleman in the chair
by leaving bis card in place of his hat. upon the seat to which he claimed to have an
almost prescriptive right.”

Quite right, Darby-Grieeith ! Hats are evidently the proper re-
presentatives of representatives, for they suggest heads. As far as
the majority of Members are concerned, it might even be contended
that the hats are just as good as the heads ; nay, if anything, better.
Hats have a right to be empty, whereas heads are prescriptively and
prinia facie considered to have something in them, which often leads to
disappointment. Besides, Hats can’t talk, never want a nap, and take
up less room than their wearers. The more Honourable Members
represented by their hats the better.

The Right Shrubs in the Right Place.—The Rotten Rowdo-
dendrons.

What Mr. Whalley had best do with his Hot Murphy.—Drop
him, or burn his fingers.