DOI Heft:
November 9, 1878
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17733#0209
November 9, 1878.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARXVAPd.
205
TWO BILLS AND TRUE BILLS.
Peace with Honour v. War with Dishonour.
To W. E. G. and Sir W. H.
Remember, remember,
The Ninth of November,
When to take Civic luck of the pot,
My Lord Beaconsfteld goes—
Then down on your toes
Won't he come—just—and give it you hot!
A REVEREND ROCK OF DEFENCE.
To the Rev. Jabez Whitewash, M.A., Vicar of All Saints
and Sinners.
Reverend Sir,
I am a thief. There is no doubt about it. I have
been examined before the Magistrates, and all the awk-
ward particulars have come out. I have read in the papers
that you give testimonials of " high character " to gentle-
men in my position. Do please, Sir, give one to me.
There is not a redeeming feature in my case. 1 admit it.
But that cannot be helped now, and I hope it won't make
any difference to you. Do you know of any other Clergy-
man who gives testimonials of this kind ? Because I
think that, if I could only get a few more, I might come
off easy at the Assizes on the ground of character. I
am told that your last testimonial made a great impres-
sion on the Court. Please address, in the first instance,
C. Bates, Esq., care of the Governor, York Castle.
N.B.—I need not tell you that I am not a dirty pick-
pocket or anything of that kind. I embezzled £10,000.
What the New City Peal Says.
You must pay up your " calls "—■
Say the bells of St. Paul's!
Stock rises and falls—
Say the bells of St. Paul's !
City Companies' hauls—■
Say the bells of St. Paul's!
Snug prebends and stalls—
Say the bells of St. Paul's!
Blessings on these old walls !
Say the bells of St. Paul's !
Tee Last New Definition of Home-Rule.—Obstruc-
tion.
A MODEL LEADEB.
The country will hear with satisfaction that the Government,
after mature consideration of the aspect of affairs in Afghanistan,
has decided upon doing something. What that something is precisely,
has not yet officially transpired. Whether it is the resolve of the
Government to invade Afghanistan at once, or to postpone action
against the recalcitrant Ameer sine die, we are not yet in a position
to say. Earl Gay, in a long and able letter, which we publish else-
where, leaves little to be said against the first proposal; Sir Barter
Fair and Sir Stephen James, whose communications we also print
in another column, leave as little to be said against the second one.
There is much to be said on both sides ; and we must admit that our
correspondents have not spared our space in saying it. The country
must read these various communications—if it can spare the time—
and decide for itself upon the rival policies.
Lord Gat's arguments would be more conclusive if they did not end
with an inconclusive conclusion. On the other hand, Sir Stephen
James's statement would settle the question completely, did not
some question occur as to the completeness of the settlement. There
is no doubt that our dealings with the Ameer for some time past
have been all wrong, but we do not see what that has to do with it
from a practical point of view. The argument from abstract right
is only of antiquarian interest. The question is not moral, but
military. We have said so before. We may probably have occasion
to say so again. The statement is concise and alliterative, if not
exactly conclusive or enlightening. The country is in no mood to
argue nice points of morality, especially in regard to its dealings
with a half-barbarous country. The earthly Providence of a vast
Asiatic dependency cannot afford to be more ethically punctilious
than other Providences—the Providence usually invoked by armed
despotism, for example, or that which is authoritatively asserted to
be ever on the side of the biggest battalions. We are of more value
than many Afghanistans, and have, consequently, the right to make
self-preservation our first—and last—law. Whether it is expedient
to exercise that right, is another question; but it is a question for
us only. This is a nice mild, musty way of putting it, which must
commend itself to the common sense of the country. The country is
in no mood for selfish dogmatism or arrogant bluster.
Earl Gay says that a Russian invasion of India is a big Bogey. We
need hardly say that we entirely agree with him. It is what we have
systematically urged all along. The idea may be dismissed as a wild
Chimera. But to the more thoughtful alarmists the banished Bogey
and the dismissed Chimera have somehow come back in another
guise—really an unpleasant one. It is just on the cards, they say,
that Russia may unwarrantably take upon herself to imitate our own
conduct in India by setting up on its own account as the earthly Pro-
vidence of a vast Asiatic dependency adjoining our own; and that
would be awkward. Two earthly Providences in Central Asia might
not agree in their dispensations, especially at close quarters. Of
course this would take time. Earl Gay says it is often as foolish to
look too far forward, as to watch only the things immediately before our
eyes. This is quite true. It is equally foolish to look too far backward.
If, for example, we were to look over our own leaders for the last twelve
months; but no matter. Sufficient for the day are the statesman-
ship and the journalism thereof. We should entirely agree with our
noble correspondent, but for,.the fact that on many points we entirely
differ from him. He overlooks the grievances we have against the
Ameer. That the Ameer has also grievances against us is true,
indeed, but scarcely to the purpose. Our conduct has been entirely
indefensible ; but then what we have to defend is not our conduct,
but our dominions ; and if we cannot conveniently do that without
attacking him, so much the worse for him.
We must again insist that it is not a moral question. It is a
question for Soldiers, if only they would agree upon the answer!
But who shall decide when Burnaby, Adye, and Havelock dis-
agree ? Of course, if the Ameer cannot hurt us, we need not hurt him.
We can in that case afford to be just, magnanimous, or, at worst,
indifferent. The difficulty is to find out whether or no he can hurt
us. The country must make up its mind on that point, which, with
the aid of our luminous leaders, it will doubtless have little difficulty
in doing. And then we shall agree with the country. We wish the
country would make haste about it, for this prolonged uncertainty
is trying to trimming- journalists. Our eminent correspondents
rather add to the difficulty, for they differ diametrically in their
views; and to agree with them all round, as we earnestly endea-
vour to do, though agreeable to the feelings, is distracting to the
intellect.
Earl Gay and Lord Florence think we had better stop as we are.
The country would be very happy to think that they are right. So
should we. Indeed, we do think so—almost. A contest could bring
us little good, and might bring us much harm. And if this reasoning
is sound, then tbe preparations of the Viceroy for war are a fiagrant
iniquity. But then we have gone too far to draw back, and must
do—what we have the pleasure of informing our readers the Govern-
ment is about to do—Something! The country, however, is in no
mood for embarking in a vague and boundless adventure of annexa-
tion. To-morrow we shall doubtless have more correspondence
from eminent hands to deal with, and then—we shall see.
VOL. LXXV.
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARXVAPd.
205
TWO BILLS AND TRUE BILLS.
Peace with Honour v. War with Dishonour.
To W. E. G. and Sir W. H.
Remember, remember,
The Ninth of November,
When to take Civic luck of the pot,
My Lord Beaconsfteld goes—
Then down on your toes
Won't he come—just—and give it you hot!
A REVEREND ROCK OF DEFENCE.
To the Rev. Jabez Whitewash, M.A., Vicar of All Saints
and Sinners.
Reverend Sir,
I am a thief. There is no doubt about it. I have
been examined before the Magistrates, and all the awk-
ward particulars have come out. I have read in the papers
that you give testimonials of " high character " to gentle-
men in my position. Do please, Sir, give one to me.
There is not a redeeming feature in my case. 1 admit it.
But that cannot be helped now, and I hope it won't make
any difference to you. Do you know of any other Clergy-
man who gives testimonials of this kind ? Because I
think that, if I could only get a few more, I might come
off easy at the Assizes on the ground of character. I
am told that your last testimonial made a great impres-
sion on the Court. Please address, in the first instance,
C. Bates, Esq., care of the Governor, York Castle.
N.B.—I need not tell you that I am not a dirty pick-
pocket or anything of that kind. I embezzled £10,000.
What the New City Peal Says.
You must pay up your " calls "—■
Say the bells of St. Paul's!
Stock rises and falls—
Say the bells of St. Paul's !
City Companies' hauls—■
Say the bells of St. Paul's!
Snug prebends and stalls—
Say the bells of St. Paul's!
Blessings on these old walls !
Say the bells of St. Paul's !
Tee Last New Definition of Home-Rule.—Obstruc-
tion.
A MODEL LEADEB.
The country will hear with satisfaction that the Government,
after mature consideration of the aspect of affairs in Afghanistan,
has decided upon doing something. What that something is precisely,
has not yet officially transpired. Whether it is the resolve of the
Government to invade Afghanistan at once, or to postpone action
against the recalcitrant Ameer sine die, we are not yet in a position
to say. Earl Gay, in a long and able letter, which we publish else-
where, leaves little to be said against the first proposal; Sir Barter
Fair and Sir Stephen James, whose communications we also print
in another column, leave as little to be said against the second one.
There is much to be said on both sides ; and we must admit that our
correspondents have not spared our space in saying it. The country
must read these various communications—if it can spare the time—
and decide for itself upon the rival policies.
Lord Gat's arguments would be more conclusive if they did not end
with an inconclusive conclusion. On the other hand, Sir Stephen
James's statement would settle the question completely, did not
some question occur as to the completeness of the settlement. There
is no doubt that our dealings with the Ameer for some time past
have been all wrong, but we do not see what that has to do with it
from a practical point of view. The argument from abstract right
is only of antiquarian interest. The question is not moral, but
military. We have said so before. We may probably have occasion
to say so again. The statement is concise and alliterative, if not
exactly conclusive or enlightening. The country is in no mood to
argue nice points of morality, especially in regard to its dealings
with a half-barbarous country. The earthly Providence of a vast
Asiatic dependency cannot afford to be more ethically punctilious
than other Providences—the Providence usually invoked by armed
despotism, for example, or that which is authoritatively asserted to
be ever on the side of the biggest battalions. We are of more value
than many Afghanistans, and have, consequently, the right to make
self-preservation our first—and last—law. Whether it is expedient
to exercise that right, is another question; but it is a question for
us only. This is a nice mild, musty way of putting it, which must
commend itself to the common sense of the country. The country is
in no mood for selfish dogmatism or arrogant bluster.
Earl Gay says that a Russian invasion of India is a big Bogey. We
need hardly say that we entirely agree with him. It is what we have
systematically urged all along. The idea may be dismissed as a wild
Chimera. But to the more thoughtful alarmists the banished Bogey
and the dismissed Chimera have somehow come back in another
guise—really an unpleasant one. It is just on the cards, they say,
that Russia may unwarrantably take upon herself to imitate our own
conduct in India by setting up on its own account as the earthly Pro-
vidence of a vast Asiatic dependency adjoining our own; and that
would be awkward. Two earthly Providences in Central Asia might
not agree in their dispensations, especially at close quarters. Of
course this would take time. Earl Gay says it is often as foolish to
look too far forward, as to watch only the things immediately before our
eyes. This is quite true. It is equally foolish to look too far backward.
If, for example, we were to look over our own leaders for the last twelve
months; but no matter. Sufficient for the day are the statesman-
ship and the journalism thereof. We should entirely agree with our
noble correspondent, but for,.the fact that on many points we entirely
differ from him. He overlooks the grievances we have against the
Ameer. That the Ameer has also grievances against us is true,
indeed, but scarcely to the purpose. Our conduct has been entirely
indefensible ; but then what we have to defend is not our conduct,
but our dominions ; and if we cannot conveniently do that without
attacking him, so much the worse for him.
We must again insist that it is not a moral question. It is a
question for Soldiers, if only they would agree upon the answer!
But who shall decide when Burnaby, Adye, and Havelock dis-
agree ? Of course, if the Ameer cannot hurt us, we need not hurt him.
We can in that case afford to be just, magnanimous, or, at worst,
indifferent. The difficulty is to find out whether or no he can hurt
us. The country must make up its mind on that point, which, with
the aid of our luminous leaders, it will doubtless have little difficulty
in doing. And then we shall agree with the country. We wish the
country would make haste about it, for this prolonged uncertainty
is trying to trimming- journalists. Our eminent correspondents
rather add to the difficulty, for they differ diametrically in their
views; and to agree with them all round, as we earnestly endea-
vour to do, though agreeable to the feelings, is distracting to the
intellect.
Earl Gay and Lord Florence think we had better stop as we are.
The country would be very happy to think that they are right. So
should we. Indeed, we do think so—almost. A contest could bring
us little good, and might bring us much harm. And if this reasoning
is sound, then tbe preparations of the Viceroy for war are a fiagrant
iniquity. But then we have gone too far to draw back, and must
do—what we have the pleasure of informing our readers the Govern-
ment is about to do—Something! The country, however, is in no
mood for embarking in a vague and boundless adventure of annexa-
tion. To-morrow we shall doubtless have more correspondence
from eminent hands to deal with, and then—we shall see.
VOL. LXXV.