Punch (58.1870)

I-

42

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[January 29, 1870.

TO TOM HUGHES, M.P.

My dear Tom,

Yotj are one of Punch's old friends. You have -written the
truest and manliest book extant on English public-school life. In all
that you have published, and in most that you have talked, you have
upheld pluck, straightforwardness, the calling of spades spades, and
the recognition that men, whether gentle or simple, are, on the whole,
made of the same clay, pulled by the same strings, worthy of the same
rights, and liable to the same duties. You have more than once told
the truth, where it wasn't at all relished, and made against your imme-
diate popularity,—as when you came down over the knuckles of certain
rogues of small tradesmen in Lambeth for their fraudulent weights and
measures. Holding you in respect for all these things, I am sorry to
have to pluck a crow with you for certain mischievous nonsense you
have been talking lately at a Southwark election meeting.

You were there to support Mr. George Odger—"the 'working
man' candidate." Now I must confess to a want of faith in candidates
who come forward on the strength of belonging to this or that order,
connection, or interest. It doesn't matter much to me whether it's
"the working man's candidate" or "the idle man's candidate," "the
public-house candidate," or "the chapel candidate," "the landlords'
candidate," or " the labourers' candidate." But of all the cants of the
day, the "working man" cant is about the most sickening to me.
And Southwark has had a more than usually strong dose of it this
election. The " hard-handed " business has been worked till we want
a good deal of the " hard-headed" business to take the taste of it
out of our mouths. And you should be one of the doctors to adminis-1
ter the tonic. But, instead of steel, you give us ipecacuanha—the
" working man mixture" as before—in the shape of such rot as this :—

'' There was a great contempt for hard work here, as there was in the ;
Southern States of America, although people scarce dare show it. They must
knock that nonsense out of the British public, and teach them that the only
thing that was really honourable in this world was good hard work. {Cheers.)
He believed this to be thoroughly a working man's borough ; and whether the
electors returned a working man now or not, they might depend the thing
would be done before another year was over."

Now, my dear Tom, what sort of a borough, in the name of common
sense, is "a thoroughly working man's borough?" One where the'
opinion of working men is strong enough to swamp that of all other
classes ? Do you think that a very desirable kind of borough, as
things go ? And how could you talk that rubbish about " contempt
for hard work ?" You know perfectly well that there is no such
thing, except among fools and fribbles, and you don't suppose there
are more or them in England than there used to be, do you ? To be
sure, " snobs " are a serious fact, and a specially English growth. And
they may think work " low." But, surely, when you talk of " hard
work," you don't mean to say that the hard work deserving of most
respect, or most qualifying men either for electing or being Members
of Parliament, is the material " hard work" of handicraftsmen,
labourers, and mechanics ?

When you wind up by hoping that Southwark " will set an example
to all England by returning a working man," do you mean that " all
England" ought to return " working men ? " Supposing Odger to
be a Phoenix, are such Phcenixes kept in stock ? Could " all England "
find Odgers at need? Don't you think a House of Commons all
Odgers would be rather like an apple-pie all quinces ?—a House of
£/#commons, in fact.

You say, " most of the great questions coming before Parliament are
working men's questions." That may be. But does it at all imply that
working men are the likeliest to find the answers to them P You in-
stanced Compulsory Education. " Was the meeting for that P " you
asked. Then some cried " Yes," and some " No."

" Well," you said, " that very difference of opinion in the meeting
was an excellent reason why working men should get into the House of
Commons." Why ? " Because it was a question which deeply affected
the working men of this country."

I should have expected another " because"—" because working men
knew most about the question, and were best able to settle it."

Then you went on :—

" There were many other public questions in which the working man was
very much interested—for instance, the question of Direct Taxation. He knew
that working men were very much in favour of direct instead of indirect taxa-
tion. He was of the same opinion, and this question must very soon come
before the House of Commons, and it would be of the greatest benefit that
there should be working men to discuss it. {Cheers.) Then there was the
question of the administration of the Poor-Law, because pauperism was be-
ginning to eat out the heart of this country, and it was placing increased
burdens upon the people, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that men
should represent the people who thoroughly understood their wants, and who
had a perfect knowledge of the wishes of the people."

Certainly; who denies, who doubts it? But, my dear Tom, the
question is, do "working men," even the Odgers among them,

thoroughly understand the wants and wishes of the people"—even
of their own class—even of their own trades P

You must see, I think, that you have been talking not only nonsense,
but mischievous nonsense—nonsense that is quite unworthy o! you,
however natural in the mouths of a conceited class of ignorant,
young fellows in fustian jackets, who are far fonder of calling them-
selves working men than of working—who spend more tin e in the
public-house than the shop, and are greater " dabs " with^their tongues
than their tools.

If you knew you were talking nonsense, I am very angry with you.
If you didn't, I am very sorry for you. But that you were talking
nonsense, is past a doubt. And so I think you will admit when you
come to think it over, by the light of this letter from your faithful
old friend, ^®N£p?.

CHABITY AND COOKERY.

It is thought a foolish thing to quarrel with one's bread-and-butter.
But there are times when such a quarrel is hardly to be wondered at,
as for instance when a man gets very little bread to eat, and hardly
ever any butter. This is not unseldom the condition of the labourer,
and, to aggravate the fact that he gets scarce enough to eat, there is
the fact that what he gets is sadly wasted in bad cookery. '

" The benighted state of the agricultural labourer's wife is almost a hope-
less one, She cannot vary the sickening narrow round of dishes which twelve
shillings a-week provide for her husband and children. Bread, cabbage,
bacon, potatoes, are the four articles she buys. Soup is unknown to her. The
artisan's wife is fully as ignorant. "Where these go half-fed, the French
housewife would prosper."

How to make the pot boil is with many a poor labourer, a
vastly puzzling problem ; and his wife is quite as puzzled to find out
what to put in it. A Erench peasant can make soup, and a score of
toothsome dishes, while an English one can only serve up half-boiled
cabbage and potatoes. In England, soup is an unheard-of luxury with
cottagers; in Prance, and elsewhere on the Continent, no peasant
dines without it. A basin of hot soup is surely a more palatable and
more nutritious meal than a scrap of bread-and-cheese, or a morsel of
fat bacon. The 'Examiner says truly:—

"The charity which introduces anew cheap food to the working poor, or
teaches them how to husband the heat and muscle, the carbon and the fibrin,
which they have been throwing away in waste for so many years, is one of
capital importance."

There are many schemes in view for national education, and many
hobbies will be mounted to ride in that direction when Parliament
next meets. Haply some one may be bold enough to move that cook-
ing classes shall be added to our schools, and that besides learning to
read, to write, to cipher, and to sew, poor girls shall be instructed in
the art of making soup. And perhaps ere the next century some one
may be bold enough to move that no certificate of marriage shall be
granted, where a certificate of cookery cannot be produced.

A NOMINAL OBSTACLE.

A writer in the Daily News comments agreeably on the difficulty
of finding names for the new theatres, which are now so constantly
being built, and makes one or two suggestions on the subject. We,
too, have a little something to suggest. We have the Gaiety. Why
not also the " Gravity ?" What name could be more suitable for a theatre
to be devoted mainly to the performance of the serious drama—if
there exists lessee or manager bold enough to undertake such a
venture ? Again, a house abandoned to light comedy, farce, operetta,
and burlesque, would not be inappropriately " appelated" (we make
an offering of this word to the American press) the " Bagatelle." We
have not been to Stationers' Hall to register either of these names, and
generously place them at the disposal of all theatrical " enterprisers "
(something more for America) and speculators.

(Ecumenical.

It is said that a priest was found concealed in a saloon of the
Council Hall at Borne, " with the cross of one of the Bishops in his
ossession;" and the report speaks of the culprit as being a Neapo-
tan priest, " of no good odour." Axe not these last words somewhat
superfluous ?

Sir Hugh Evans on the (Ecumenical.

Dear Pope, these holy scandals set me sighing,
Por " I am of the Church." Do keep 'em quiet:

This present shindy's most unedifying,
" It is not meet the Council hear a Riot."

A " Ply" Sheet—The new Cab Regulations.

E