Punch (65.1873)

October 25, 1873.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

161


I


CONFESSION IN CONFUSION.

Priest. “Now, tell me, Door.an, truthfully, how often do you go to
Chapel ? ”

Pat. “Will, now, shure oi’ll till yf,r Riv’rence the Trut’. Faix, I

GO AS OFTEN I CAN AVOID ! ”

RITUALISM AND EBENEZER,

(■Suggested by a speech delivered in the late Church
Congress.)

Forebode you disestablishment ?

What else, Archdeacon Denison.

To please a preacher of Dissent;

Like you—or Spurgeon is not one ?

Doctrines which Articles deny

In terms direct, distinct, and plain,

Don’t all you Clergy Ultra-High
In pulpit and in print maintain ?

Don’t you, and such as you, refuse
Your Bishops’ orders to obey ;

Persist in doing what you choose,

And minding not a word they say ?

Dissent, North, South, or East, or West,

Is still Dissent, Dissenters ve
Are in priests’ vestments, and the vest
Our waistcoat tailors call M. B.

Go then, and mix with Miaxl’s crew,

War ’gainst Establishment proclaim ;
Dissenters in the Church are you :

Get out of it, and own your name.

A Good Riddance.

Mr. Bradlaugh, who is now on a lecturing cour m
the United States, has been “ interviewed,” like other
lions who visit our American Cousins. In the course of
the interview Mr. Bradlaugh expressed his willingness
to make a present of the British Aristocracy and the
Church of England to the United States. We have no
doubt the Aristocracy and the Church would be ready to
reciprocate the compliment, and to make the States a
present of Mr. Bradlaugh. We cannot imagine a
testimonial which would be likely to command a larger
subscription. _

SPORTING NEWS.

“ The Cambridgeshire ” seems likely to be a walk over
for “ House of Yorke.”

I


THE MUSSULMAN PLATFORM.

On Tuesday last week, at Manchester, was held the annual
meeting of a General Council—one not of the Church. No ; that
assembly represented our British Know-Nothings; namely the
Members of the United Kingdom Alliance, who have now proclaimed
that they will know nothing in politics but the Permissive Prohibi-
tory Bill. The representatives of the Alliance leagued together for
the destruction of the trade in generous liquors, met in the Free
Trade Hall.

So far from being a Council of the Church, indeed, this General
Council of Permissive Prohibitory Know-Nothings appears to have
consisted chielly of persons whose creed is quite another than that
of Christendom. Sir Wilfrid Lawson, according to the report of
his speech in the Times, describing the policy of the United Kingdom
Alliance with respect to the law which at present regulates the sale
of liquors, said :—

“ That policy was, disregarding both parties who had allied themselves to
this evil system, to show forth then faith by their works by endeavouring to
return men to Parliament who would go against the mischievous principle.”

The faith which Sir Wilfrid Lawson wishes his Know-Nothings
to show forth by their works appears to be one of which few persons
have any idea that there are any votaries in the House of Commons.
But he himself represents Carlisle. And Sir Walter C. Tre-
velyan, President of the Alliance, in his opening address from the
Chair of its General Council, declared that:—

“ He could not repress a feeling of anxious foreboding for most disastrous
results from our too characteristic national love for strong drink, should not
some check soon be devised to the continued great increase and extension of
the terrible evils which must ever afflict a country whose revenues depended
greatly on the consumption of those infernal drugs, intoxicating drink and
tobacco.”

By intoxicating drinks, Sir Walter Trevelyan means, among
other drinks, wine, which intoxicates those who abuse it, and does
those who use it good. Wine, if the words above quoted are really

his, he calls an infernal drug. Of course he would not himself take
any of an infernal drug even for his stomach’s sake. Neither
would Sir Wilfrid Lawson ; no more than would, unless he is a
humbug, the Sheikh-ul-Islam. The epithet applied by the Presi-
dent of the United Kingdom Alliance, the other evening, to wine, is
obviously inconsistent with any belief in its immediate production,
once upon a time, from pure water. The only faith that can be
shown forth by the use of that strong expression surely is the
faith of Mahomet. What says Trevelyan Effendi ? Is it not so,
Lawson Bey F

And yet Turks, who smoke tobacco, could not call it also an
infernal drug ; but then some Turks may not smoke, and may curse
tobacco, and be Turks and heretics too. However, the idea of the
Permissive Prohibitory Bill is perfectly Turkishonly, to make it
perfect, the permission to prohibit the sale of wine, and the other
drinks which Sir W. C. Trevelyan calls infernal, should be accorded
to a Pacha, or a Cadi, instead of to a majority of ratepayers, and
conferred, not by an Act of Parliament, but a firman.

It appears that total abstinence from all but the weakest drink is
quite compatible with the use of the very strongest language.

Henri Cinq.

Scene—The Boulevards. Halfred and ’Arry meeting, and discussing

French politics.

Halfred. I say, ’Arry, what’ll this ere County Shambor call
’imself if he comes to the throne ?

''Arry. Well, you see, considerin’ if he comes up to the surface,
they oughtn’t to call him ’Enry Sank, but ’Enry Rose.

ALTERATION IN THE CUT.

Modern mechanical inventions are so rapidly superseding the old-
fashioned implement, the scythe, that Time ought, in future, to be
represented with a Mowing Machine.

VLl. 65.