Punch (66.1874)

18

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[January 10, 1874.

J

“TRANSFORMATION SCENE.”

Good Templar. “0 dear No! Don’t mention it! I never take any-
thing- I-! ”

Fiend (in Human Shape). “Nonsense! Chrishmash Time! You’ll take
Something-”

Templar. “Well, if you put it like That, I’ll take-”

(Takes it.

THE PLUSH AND THE PEN.

So please Your Excellency, Mr. Punch, read this :—

“The Marriage of Miss Gladstonf..—The Echo ia re-
quested to state that Me. Gladstone’s remarks on the occasion
of his daughter’s marriage were spoken in a private room at
Hawarden Rectory, and to neighbours only.”

Thus you perceive that a speech, which you doubtless
perused and admired, was published, not having been
intended for publication. How did this happen F It is
impossible to say; but let any public gentleman, who
does not want to see his private table-talk in print, mind
what he says in the presence of shoulder-knots, other
than casual ones of the regimental species. Of course,
if John Thomas sent you a report of his master’s re-
marks, you would naturally suppose he had done as he
was bid: and, probably, the paragraph which I have
submitted to your notice attests the results of that
education which has been already given to some of those
whom Mr. Lowe once called our future masters;
although those some in particular may, at present, be
our servants.

Receive, Sir, the salutations of the season from your
own obedient servant to command, whom call, as school-
boys cry, Cave.

.Tan. 1, 1874.

BOHN v. BASS.

“ At a recent meeting of tbe Students’ Literary Society in
connection with St. Andrew’s University, the debate for the
evening was, ‘Whether are Bohn’s translations or Bass’s beer
the greater benefit to students ? ’ ”

The subject, it is added, naturally called forth a lively
discussion, and at the close the meeting decided in favour

of the- Translations, by an overwhelming majority F

We grieve to say, and every right-minded person will
share our disappointment, that such was not the con-
clusion to which the students came just before the
Christmas vacation. They “ decided in favour of the
beer,” but only—and we cling to this as leaving.us
some little hope for their future career—“ by the casting
vote of the chairman.” We shall be curious to see
whether the example set by St. Andrew’s of comparing
Bohn and Bass, rather than Aristotle and Plato, or
Cicero and Demosthenes, is followed by our own Uni-
versities. Will Oxford devote a night at the Union to
a comparison of the advantages of logic and long pipes ;
or Cambridge expend all its argument and eloquence in
discussing the rival merits of Euclid and hot grog F


ACOUSTIC TREAT.

The following extract from a Newspaper contains two statements,
of which the first in order seems incredible, and the second is sur-
prising, if true :— ,

“ Christmas Carols.—On Sunday afternoon tbe Choristers of St. Vedast’s
Church, Cheapside, accompanied by Mr. Robert Turner, the Precentor,
went to the Charing Cross Hospital and sang a selection of Christmas Carols
in the various wards. The patients were much pleased with the carols, and
the thoughtful kindness of those who had in this way sought to cheer them at
this season.”

Perhaps this benevolent idea was suggested by one of John
Leech’s pictures, of very old date. A lodger is amusing himself by
blowing a great trumpet and beating a big drum, next to the
chamber of an invalid. The musician remarks,

“ This is a charity to my sick neighbour : it may soothe him to a gentle
slumber.”

Yet it is difficult to conceive how any person could take it into his
head that the inmates of a hospital, any but a few of those nearly
well, would be at all comforted, or otherwise than exceedingly dis-
turbed and irritated by the noise of a set of choristers singing
Christmas carols. Were the medical authorities of Charing Cross
Hospital aware of this performance F Had its executants attempted
it under the window of any one lving ill, they would have been sent
away, or given in charge. The fact that the patients “ were much
pleased” with the effect which the exertions of those vocalists pro-
duced on their ears is surely one which requires the very strongest
confirmation. No doubt there was great kindness on the part of
those “ who had in this way sought to cheer” sick persons “at this
season,” but that the kindness was “thoughtful” very few will
think. The only sort of hospital wherein such kindness could be

appreciated would, one imagines, be an asylum for imbeciles who
were music-mad. Hood intentions form a certain pavement, and
surely the exploit above related is one of its flagstones.

NOMINAL IMPEDIMENTS.

Foreigners in general, and Frenchmen in particular, may be
often heard denouncing the abominable difficulties of the English
language, especially in matters of right spelling and pronouncing.
But really there are obstacles of this sort in other tongues than ours,
as, for instance, may be seen in these two morsels of intelligence,
printed close together in a recent newspaper :—

“We learn from Krujevacz that the Skoupchtina (the Servian Parliament)
was opened to day. M. Karabiberovitch has been elected to the post of
President.”

“ Appeal. Privy Council. Eenoderam Sein and others v. Rajah
Brojendranarain Roy.”

Doubtless the word “Smith” is difficult to be said by people
unaccustomed to talk between their teeth, and we dare say the
name “ Buggins” would assume a different sound, when uttered by
a foreigner, from that which English speakers commonly assign to
it. But surely “ Smith ” is easier to spell than “Karabiberovitch” ;
and we would really back a baby, no matter of what nation, to say
“ Buggins ” quite as readily as “ Rajah Brojendranarain.”

quite ’iother.

A certain Mr. Main, Heaven save the mark, has re-written
Boswell's Life of Johnson, spicing it with appropriate reflections !
In this most superfluous literary effort the mam force shown is
feebleness.