DOI Heft:
September 7, 1867
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16880#0105
September 7, 1867.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
93
A A
BY THE CARD.”
Pedestrian. “ How ear is it to Sludgecombe, Boy ? ”
Boy. “ Why ’bout twenty ’unheed theausan’ Mild ’f y’ goo ’s y’aee
agooin’ now, an’ ’bout Half a Mild ’f you turn right reaound an’ goo
t’ other way ! ! ”
THE RITUALISTIC REPORT.
Your Majesty’s faithful Commissioners, appointed to
inquire into Ritualistic Practices, have the honour to in-
form your Majesty that they have not done so.
For reasons with which they need not trouble your
Majesty, they abstained from making any report at all until
Parliament had dispersed. They may, however, just men-
tion, that they considered it would not tend to the peace of
| the Church to have disagreeable Parliamentary debates on
the subjects in question. «
They now beg to state that they have asked several
persons what they thought of the new Vestments, and that
the Commissioners have arrived at the important discovery
that there are different opinions on the topic.
They are strongly of opinion that it is Expedient not to
give offence.
They therefore unhesitatingly say, that where persons
are aggrieved by the ritualistic A estments, those persons
should be enabled to obtain Redress.
The name of Mr. Walpole, subscribed to the report,
will be a sufficient guarantee to your Majesty that no un-
called-for joke is meant in the last word of the preceding
paragraph.
The Commissioners are quite unable to offer the slightest
hint as to the means whereby such redress should be ob-
tained, but they beg to disclaim in the strongest manner
the idea that the Bishops of the Church ought to be
troubled to inquire into the doings of clergymen. If
parishioners are aggrieved, they should take action for
themselves, if able to afford it.
The Commissioners need not add, that where a minister
can induce his flock to assent to Vestments, or any other
novelty, interference would be objectionable, inasmuch as
no principle is involved in church matters, and, as has
been said, the question is one of Expediency.
They conclude by expressing to your Majesty their con-
viction of the great value of the Commission, and of the
satisfaction with which all good persons will hail this
conclusion of an important controversy.
Note on Reform.
The Constituency, under the new Reform Act will in-
clude no Compound Householders at all, whilst, on the
other hand, it will include a considerable number of simple
ones.
A COMPETITION WALLOW.
By inexact pronunciation a disagreeable idea is suggested in naming
a Competition Wallah. Prize pigs in clean straw at the Fat Cattle
Show are all very well, but such competitors have competed in nothing
worse than obesity. A Competition Wallow is a sight which an extreme
predilection for the grotesque alone could enable a man to tolerate.
No woman, perhaps, but here and there a farmer’s wife, would willingly
endure the spectacle of a physical and regular Competition Wallow.
There is, however, a wallow of the competitive kind, to a nice moral
Bense perhaps even more repugnant than any such competition occurring
in a stye can be to the most delicate physical perceptions. People may
compete by wallowing in ignominy worse than any litter.
Is it possible to help feeling that in industrial rivalry, exhibited in a
trial of practical skill in the art of breaking safes open and picking
locks, there is somewhat partaking, morally considered, of the nature ot
a Competition Wallow ? This question is suggested by an account in
the Times of a contest which took place at the Great French Exhibition
the other day between two exhibitors, strong-box manufacturers, an
Englishman and an American. The latter had published a challenge,
backing his “ burglar-proof safe ” for a sum of money against any
other safe in the Exhibition; the safes to be respectively subjected
“ to a test by experts.” His challenge was accepted by the English-
man, and the trial, of which the anticipation excited intense interest,
came off on the appointed day. Three German “ experts ” were
employed to attempt the English safe, and the same number of
inexpert Lancashire men “ who represented brute force rather than
intellect ” had the job of trying to break open the American one. The
German skilled operatives in burglary beat the English workmen
rather than the American safe beat the English one, of whose superiority
the Times' correspondent says “there can be no two opinions.” He
remarks that :—
“ There was a strong international feeling excited. The Yankees were going to
‘whip’ the ‘Britisher’ again. In 1S61 we were whipped in yachts, and didn’t a
Yankee pick the Bramah lock ? And now they were going to do it again, ‘ as sure as
your’re alive.’”
It is this sort of enthusiasm about burglarious expertness, and
glorying in it, connected with testing the safes, that gives that trial the
character of what leave is taken to call a Competition Wallow. No
blame whatever, of course, can be imputed to competitors in the con-
trivance of securities so needful as Sikes and jemmy proof-safes, fqr
bringing their several inventions to the test, but does not a certain
compunction of taste suggest that the operations needful for such a
purpose had better, like those of anatomy for instance, be performed,
if not in private, yet at least without very ostentatious publicity ? Is
there not something undignified to a ridiculously high or rather low-
degree in the scene which the visitors to the “ World’s Fair ” at Paris
are thus described as witnessing whilst the German “experts” were
exercising their skill on the English safe ?—
“ la the meantime the Lancashire men were working on Ma. Herring's safe.
They were separated from their rivals by a curtain, and the spectators could see
both sets of operators at once.”
The picture above presented reminds us of the double scene that
sometimes, in the course of a criminal drama, delights the higher orders
(that is to say, the audience in the gallery) of an inferior theatre. It
exhibits an illustration of the World’s Industry having very much the
reverse of that noble and elevating character which such industry is
commonly extolled for. Therefore must not the proceeding which
it represents be regarded as a competition in a sort of struggle
analogous in some measure to wallowing ?
The French Army.
There are two baths in the Camp of Chalons, “for,” says the
Special of the Times, “ the floating camp population.” Which “float-
ing” includes, we suppose, the swimming and diving population—the
population which can neither float, swim, nor dive, has, of course, to
put up with wash-hand basins.
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
93
A A
BY THE CARD.”
Pedestrian. “ How ear is it to Sludgecombe, Boy ? ”
Boy. “ Why ’bout twenty ’unheed theausan’ Mild ’f y’ goo ’s y’aee
agooin’ now, an’ ’bout Half a Mild ’f you turn right reaound an’ goo
t’ other way ! ! ”
THE RITUALISTIC REPORT.
Your Majesty’s faithful Commissioners, appointed to
inquire into Ritualistic Practices, have the honour to in-
form your Majesty that they have not done so.
For reasons with which they need not trouble your
Majesty, they abstained from making any report at all until
Parliament had dispersed. They may, however, just men-
tion, that they considered it would not tend to the peace of
| the Church to have disagreeable Parliamentary debates on
the subjects in question. «
They now beg to state that they have asked several
persons what they thought of the new Vestments, and that
the Commissioners have arrived at the important discovery
that there are different opinions on the topic.
They are strongly of opinion that it is Expedient not to
give offence.
They therefore unhesitatingly say, that where persons
are aggrieved by the ritualistic A estments, those persons
should be enabled to obtain Redress.
The name of Mr. Walpole, subscribed to the report,
will be a sufficient guarantee to your Majesty that no un-
called-for joke is meant in the last word of the preceding
paragraph.
The Commissioners are quite unable to offer the slightest
hint as to the means whereby such redress should be ob-
tained, but they beg to disclaim in the strongest manner
the idea that the Bishops of the Church ought to be
troubled to inquire into the doings of clergymen. If
parishioners are aggrieved, they should take action for
themselves, if able to afford it.
The Commissioners need not add, that where a minister
can induce his flock to assent to Vestments, or any other
novelty, interference would be objectionable, inasmuch as
no principle is involved in church matters, and, as has
been said, the question is one of Expediency.
They conclude by expressing to your Majesty their con-
viction of the great value of the Commission, and of the
satisfaction with which all good persons will hail this
conclusion of an important controversy.
Note on Reform.
The Constituency, under the new Reform Act will in-
clude no Compound Householders at all, whilst, on the
other hand, it will include a considerable number of simple
ones.
A COMPETITION WALLOW.
By inexact pronunciation a disagreeable idea is suggested in naming
a Competition Wallah. Prize pigs in clean straw at the Fat Cattle
Show are all very well, but such competitors have competed in nothing
worse than obesity. A Competition Wallow is a sight which an extreme
predilection for the grotesque alone could enable a man to tolerate.
No woman, perhaps, but here and there a farmer’s wife, would willingly
endure the spectacle of a physical and regular Competition Wallow.
There is, however, a wallow of the competitive kind, to a nice moral
Bense perhaps even more repugnant than any such competition occurring
in a stye can be to the most delicate physical perceptions. People may
compete by wallowing in ignominy worse than any litter.
Is it possible to help feeling that in industrial rivalry, exhibited in a
trial of practical skill in the art of breaking safes open and picking
locks, there is somewhat partaking, morally considered, of the nature ot
a Competition Wallow ? This question is suggested by an account in
the Times of a contest which took place at the Great French Exhibition
the other day between two exhibitors, strong-box manufacturers, an
Englishman and an American. The latter had published a challenge,
backing his “ burglar-proof safe ” for a sum of money against any
other safe in the Exhibition; the safes to be respectively subjected
“ to a test by experts.” His challenge was accepted by the English-
man, and the trial, of which the anticipation excited intense interest,
came off on the appointed day. Three German “ experts ” were
employed to attempt the English safe, and the same number of
inexpert Lancashire men “ who represented brute force rather than
intellect ” had the job of trying to break open the American one. The
German skilled operatives in burglary beat the English workmen
rather than the American safe beat the English one, of whose superiority
the Times' correspondent says “there can be no two opinions.” He
remarks that :—
“ There was a strong international feeling excited. The Yankees were going to
‘whip’ the ‘Britisher’ again. In 1S61 we were whipped in yachts, and didn’t a
Yankee pick the Bramah lock ? And now they were going to do it again, ‘ as sure as
your’re alive.’”
It is this sort of enthusiasm about burglarious expertness, and
glorying in it, connected with testing the safes, that gives that trial the
character of what leave is taken to call a Competition Wallow. No
blame whatever, of course, can be imputed to competitors in the con-
trivance of securities so needful as Sikes and jemmy proof-safes, fqr
bringing their several inventions to the test, but does not a certain
compunction of taste suggest that the operations needful for such a
purpose had better, like those of anatomy for instance, be performed,
if not in private, yet at least without very ostentatious publicity ? Is
there not something undignified to a ridiculously high or rather low-
degree in the scene which the visitors to the “ World’s Fair ” at Paris
are thus described as witnessing whilst the German “experts” were
exercising their skill on the English safe ?—
“ la the meantime the Lancashire men were working on Ma. Herring's safe.
They were separated from their rivals by a curtain, and the spectators could see
both sets of operators at once.”
The picture above presented reminds us of the double scene that
sometimes, in the course of a criminal drama, delights the higher orders
(that is to say, the audience in the gallery) of an inferior theatre. It
exhibits an illustration of the World’s Industry having very much the
reverse of that noble and elevating character which such industry is
commonly extolled for. Therefore must not the proceeding which
it represents be regarded as a competition in a sort of struggle
analogous in some measure to wallowing ?
The French Army.
There are two baths in the Camp of Chalons, “for,” says the
Special of the Times, “ the floating camp population.” Which “float-
ing” includes, we suppose, the swimming and diving population—the
population which can neither float, swim, nor dive, has, of course, to
put up with wash-hand basins.