Punch (53.1867)

July 6, 1867.]

PUNCH OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF CAUTION.

N a speech delivered at a
meeting of the Court of
Aldermen, Colonel Alder-
man Wilson vindicated his
abstention from interference
with the Roughs who were
committing the outrages
attendant on the late march-
out of the City Militia. His
apology lay in the argument,
“ that if in the course of
the proceedings any life
were lost, he (Alderman
Wilson) would be held re-
sponsible ; ” and he said :—

‘ ‘ Thus if, availing; himself of
the body he held in his com-
mand, he had detached men as
suggested, and a mischance had
ensued, he (Aldebman Wilson)
might have been put on his trial
at the Old Bailey on a charge
of manslaughter, if not of
murder.”

To be sure. Now we are
beginning to see what we
owe to the Jamaica Com-
mittee. They failed, to be
sure, in their attempt to get
Governor Eyre hanged ;
but, by their prosecution of that gentleman, they have succeeded in
inculcating a lesson on Colonel Alderman Wilson. Other persons
in authority, besides the gallant Colonel and worthy Alderman, will
now think twice before they venture to arrest outrageous Roughs,
or to endeavour to save society by any interference involving the
risk of killing robbers or rioters. See the happy result of enforcing
responsibility. Authorities decline it. For so doing, the people who
suffer by their prudence may hiss them, but they themselves applaud
themselves at home as often as they think how wise they were not to
have incurred at least the expense and anxiety of having to defend
themselves against an indictment, and, possibly, even a conviction
and penal consequences. We cannot expect to enjoy both the
advantage of promptitude in the suppression of outrage, and the
gratification of punishing, in cold blood, excesses of duty performed
under excitement by our preservers. No, not we ; any more than we
can have our cake and eat it too. We ought to be very much obliged
to the Jamaica Committee.

COURT DRESS REFORM.

Mr. Punch,

There is in the Morning Post a suggestion for the reformation
of Court Dress, which is excellent as far as it goes. The Post recom-
mends the discontinuance of that grotesque garb in which men not
otherwise officially bedizened are obliged to figure at Royal levees and
balls. So far so good. But instead of this trim, which makes a man
look like an embroidered Quaker, your fashionable contemporary re-
commends “that gentlemen should be permitted to attend Her
Majesty’s levees in tbe same dress as they would a royal dinner
when they are not entitled to uniform; that is to say in shorts and
silks, or tights.” Sir, I object to this proposal. Why shorts or tights ?
I am bandy-legged and pot-bellied, and both tights and shorts are
calculated to render those personal peculiarities of mine as conspicuous
as possible, and expose them to derision, which in looser clothing they
would escape, passing comparatively unnoticed. Although I do not
care a straw how much people laugh at me behind my back, I some-
times feel my habitual serenity disturbed by the consciousness of being
an object of present ridicule. Let me be allowed to go to Court, then,
if ever I am obliged by accepting an appointment to some lucrative
office, under the Crown, in a decent evening-dress, including trousers
sufficiently capacious to shroud, with a suitable amplitude of drapery,
the abdominal and crural curves of yours truly, Ineormis

P.S. I am content with my carcase. Your Adonis has a figure to
lose : I have not.

Dr. Peabody.

At the Oxford Commemoration of Founders and Benefactors, with
an appropriateness perhaps unique, Mr. Peabody received an honorary
degree. In his special case the distinguishing initials, D.C.L., are
always to be interpreted as signifving Donor, City of London.

Cash Advances.”—Courting a Rich Widow.

THE MICE IN THE CABINET.

Not long since, so the story goes,

A pleasant argument arose,

Between a young and aged mouse
Who boarded at a country-house,

Relating to a Cabinet

In which those Wranglers often met.

“ My son,” ’twas thus the Senior spoke,

“ Be sure, ’tis good old English oak.

How firm it stands ! What force could break it
An earthquake scarce could move or shake it.”

“ You’re wrong, dear Dad, ’tis modern deal,

A fact which varnish can’t conceal.

’Tis highly polished, I admit,”

(The young Mouse said with gestures fit.)

“ But touch it lightly, or you may
Depend there ’ll be a split some day.

“ A mouse convinced against his will,”—

Muspere replied, “Look at the Bill,

And that will show, sans other aid,

Of what materials ’tis made ! ”

With earnest eyes the Bill they scan
(A Bill due to a Working-man).

And then Mouse fits, who loves his joke,

Cries, “ Dad, this firm don’t deal in oak.

And if you look at it again
The Cabinet has got a grain
As rough as any common trap,

VI hich holds of toasted cheese a scrap.

But traps are not set there for naught,

Let’s watch and see who ’ll first be caught.

MORAL.

Trust not alone external show,

But cautious learn what lies below.

For Cabinets, those polished things,

Contain sometimes peculiar springs,

Which, though obscure to vulgar sight,

Mice can discern, both brown and white.

REGULATION WHISKERS WANTED.

If we were writing a burlesque, which happily we are not, we should
find occasion somehow to introduce these couplets, having reference to
a circular just issued to the Fleet

Our Admiralty Lords, the truth to state,

Are little in great things, and in little great.

They let the dockyards run most wasteful rigs,

And go the whole hog with their “Seely’s pigs.”

Then to mere whiskers they devote much care,

And seem indeed particular to a hair.

The circular we refer to complains of a “ custom”—

“ Which appears to be somewhat prevalent in the fleet of officers wearing
whiskei-s of such inordinate size and length as to resemble beards, which latter are
forbidden by the Printed Instructions. The regulations of the Naval Service require
that aDy such irregular habit should be prevented, and that officers should be per-
mitted only to wear the same length of whiskers as the Seamen and Marines under
their divisional superintendence.”

We wish “My Lords” were as particular in examining the cost of
cutting down a three-decker as they are in their instructions about
cutting down a whisker. Rut how are they to know that their direc-
tions are complied with ? Is the captain every morning to go round
the cabius of his officers, armed with a foot-rule, aud to measure all
their whiskers as soon as they have shaved ? Then, is he to report if
there be any “inordinate ” in size ? And, if so, how is he to know the
exact length which this adjective is intended to define ? An officer
who has a fancy for giving himself hairs may permit his crew to wear
their whiskers nearly a foot long, if he be allowed to “ wear the same
length” as Ids men. In matters of such moment as the trimming of a
whisker, “My Lords” will doubtless recognise the full necessity of the
carefullest inspection; although they may not see the need of it in
paltry matters of account, where some few millions may be yearly
wasted by the want of it.

As hair is valuable just now for manufacture into chignons, the
loppings of the naval whiskers might be profitably sold, and “ My
Lords ” thus get tbe credit of a practice of economy far more than is
their wont. Perhaps in order that the officers may know to a hair
how much hirsuteness is permitted them, pattern whiskers should be
kept with the pattern uaval uniforms displayed by certain of our
Admirals. So that officers may shave themselves according to the
pattern, aud precisely trim their whiskers to tbe regulation length.