DOI issue:
September 25, 1880
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.17764#0149
September 25, 1880.] PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. i«
LAYS OF A LAZY MINSTREL.
V.—The Tam o’ Shanter Cap.
Upon the Spa at Scarborough, the Minstrel was a panter—
He asked a Wilful Maiden why she wore a Tam o’ Shanter ?
She gazed upon his furrowed face, half doubting if he chaffed her,
Then, noting well his solemn mien, she answered thus, with laughter
et others wear, upon the Spa,
The “ Rubens” hat or
bonnet;
The “ Gainsborough,” the
Tuscan straw,
With marguerites upon
it—
The “Pamela,” of quaint
design.
The “Zulu,” or the
“ Planter ”—
But as for me, I much in-
cline
To wear my Tam o’
Shanter!
^et others sport the fluffy
hat,
The “ Sailor Boy,” or
“ Granny; ”
The “Bargee,” or some
other that
Is anything but canny.
If petticoats he short or
long,
Or fuller he or scanter,
Or if you think it right or wrong—
I ’ll wear my Tam o’ Shanter.
I ’ll wear it if it’s hot or cold.
Let weather what it may be!
Will this Child do “what she is told ” ?
Or is she quite a baby F
I do not care for my Mamma,
Or even Punch's banter ;
Despite the chaff of dear Papa,
I ’ll wear my Tam o’ Shanter!
You ask me if I ’ll tell you why
I cannot do without it ?
Because it keeps me cool and dry—
You seem inclined to doubt it ?
The reason why ? There, pray don’t tease I
I ’ll tell you that instanter.
The reason is—Because I please
To wear my Tam o’ Shanter!
STARVATION FROM SPIRITUALISM.
If you are asked to give an example of a fool’s question, answer
“ Cui hono ? ” Possible truth means possible, even though for the
present unintelligible, good. This your fool does not see. If the
alleged facts of Spiritualism were not fallacies, the question “ Cui
hono ?” objected to Spiritualism would be a fool’s.
Believers in Spiritualism, however, on the other hand, may some
of them have the confidence to ask, “ Cui malo?" (What’s the
harm of it P) An answer to that demand is afforded by evidence
given at a recent inquest as to the death of an unhappy simpleton
who starved himself to death by an attempt at “ doing Dr. Tanner’s
fast.” It was to be expected that one fool would make many. A
witness deposed that—
“ Last Wednesday week be asked the deceased, ‘ Why don’t you take some
food r” and beUeplied, ‘ Mind your own business. The spirits will keep me
afire.’ Deceased was a Spiritualist.”
Notwithstanding this testimony, however, the jury returned a
verdict that ‘ ‘ deceased died from inanition owing to want of food,
and that death was caused by misadventure.”
Were the gentlemen of the jury Spiritualists likewise? and was
that their reason for not finding that their condisciple destroyed
himself by starvation under the influence of insanity ?
SALE—NO SELL.
The “ Belhus Hunters.” This is not the sale of the broken-
winded horses which is a daily event near St. Martin’s Lane. This
is a case of Belhus-to-run, not Belhus-to-mend.
JUSTICES' JUSTICE,
HOW (NOT) TO RECTIFY IT.
(Vide Recent Correspondence in Daily Papers.)
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud, Fsq.
Sir,—My attention has been called not only by the outspoken
comments of the Press, but by the indignant questions of several
Members of that House of which I have the honour to be the greatest
ornament, to the fact that last month you sentenced a boy named
William Gonoff, and aged nine years, to fourteen days’ imprison-
ment for stealing a shilling’s-worth of turnips. An explanatio of
so marvellous a miscarriage of justice will oblige,
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Sir Historicus,—I sentenced the youth named William
Gonoff—whose right age is fifteen, by the bye—to ten days’ imprison-
ment for stealing a pound’s-worth of turnips, and for assaulting the
police. Will this suit you ? Yours truly, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud, Fsq.
Sir,—I am credibly informed that the child, William Gonoff,
was sentenced by you to a month’s hard labour for stealing six-
pennyworth of turnips, and that his age is five. Your explanation
is unsatisfactory. Yours truly, Historicus.
P.S.—You ought to have flogged him.
Ft ■om J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Historicus,—William Gonoff is forty-seven, and he was
sentenced to three days’ imprisonment for stealing two acres of
turnips, and for assaulting five policemen. Since then he has mur-
dered his grandmother, has committed bigamy, and has burnt a
church. Are you satisfied now ? Yours sincerely,
J. P. Stroud.
P.S.—I had no power to flog him.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
Sir,—The tone of your explanation is completely wrong. I repeat
you ought to have flogged William Gonoff.
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Old Man,—If you are so precious fond of flogging William
Gonoff, why didn’t you come and do it yourself ?
Yours ever, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
Sir,—I will let you know whom you are calling “ dear old man.”
I order the immediate release of William Gonoff.
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Ha ! ha! What a wag you are ! William Gonoff was released
four days before your first communication ever reached me. You
old quiz! Yours, my boy, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
Sir,—Why the deuce didn’t you tell me that William Gonoff
had been released before I commenced this weighty correspondence ?
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Old Cussy,—Did you ever see Toole in Ici on parle Fran-
qais ? If not, get somebody to give you an order. I will reply as
Joes Mr. Toole in that play, that I didn’t teU you that William
Gonoff had been released before you commenced your correspond-
ence—“ ’Cos you didn’t arst me, ’cos you didn’t arst me.” I am
going to send this correspondence to Punch. Ta! ta! dear old
chappie! Yours for ever, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
You may send your correspondence to the-
(And then the Home Secretary breaks into tears at the thoughts
that a career hitherto unsuspected of any too great softness of heart
should be tarnished by an uncalled-for exhibition of sentiment, not
to say sentimentality. Likewise having torn his hair at the reflec-
tion that victory rests for once with the purveyors of Justices’ justice,
he reads up the subject, and writes to the Times.)
Motto for Liberals, 1880.—“ This side up.”
LAYS OF A LAZY MINSTREL.
V.—The Tam o’ Shanter Cap.
Upon the Spa at Scarborough, the Minstrel was a panter—
He asked a Wilful Maiden why she wore a Tam o’ Shanter ?
She gazed upon his furrowed face, half doubting if he chaffed her,
Then, noting well his solemn mien, she answered thus, with laughter
et others wear, upon the Spa,
The “ Rubens” hat or
bonnet;
The “ Gainsborough,” the
Tuscan straw,
With marguerites upon
it—
The “Pamela,” of quaint
design.
The “Zulu,” or the
“ Planter ”—
But as for me, I much in-
cline
To wear my Tam o’
Shanter!
^et others sport the fluffy
hat,
The “ Sailor Boy,” or
“ Granny; ”
The “Bargee,” or some
other that
Is anything but canny.
If petticoats he short or
long,
Or fuller he or scanter,
Or if you think it right or wrong—
I ’ll wear my Tam o’ Shanter.
I ’ll wear it if it’s hot or cold.
Let weather what it may be!
Will this Child do “what she is told ” ?
Or is she quite a baby F
I do not care for my Mamma,
Or even Punch's banter ;
Despite the chaff of dear Papa,
I ’ll wear my Tam o’ Shanter!
You ask me if I ’ll tell you why
I cannot do without it ?
Because it keeps me cool and dry—
You seem inclined to doubt it ?
The reason why ? There, pray don’t tease I
I ’ll tell you that instanter.
The reason is—Because I please
To wear my Tam o’ Shanter!
STARVATION FROM SPIRITUALISM.
If you are asked to give an example of a fool’s question, answer
“ Cui hono ? ” Possible truth means possible, even though for the
present unintelligible, good. This your fool does not see. If the
alleged facts of Spiritualism were not fallacies, the question “ Cui
hono ?” objected to Spiritualism would be a fool’s.
Believers in Spiritualism, however, on the other hand, may some
of them have the confidence to ask, “ Cui malo?" (What’s the
harm of it P) An answer to that demand is afforded by evidence
given at a recent inquest as to the death of an unhappy simpleton
who starved himself to death by an attempt at “ doing Dr. Tanner’s
fast.” It was to be expected that one fool would make many. A
witness deposed that—
“ Last Wednesday week be asked the deceased, ‘ Why don’t you take some
food r” and beUeplied, ‘ Mind your own business. The spirits will keep me
afire.’ Deceased was a Spiritualist.”
Notwithstanding this testimony, however, the jury returned a
verdict that ‘ ‘ deceased died from inanition owing to want of food,
and that death was caused by misadventure.”
Were the gentlemen of the jury Spiritualists likewise? and was
that their reason for not finding that their condisciple destroyed
himself by starvation under the influence of insanity ?
SALE—NO SELL.
The “ Belhus Hunters.” This is not the sale of the broken-
winded horses which is a daily event near St. Martin’s Lane. This
is a case of Belhus-to-run, not Belhus-to-mend.
JUSTICES' JUSTICE,
HOW (NOT) TO RECTIFY IT.
(Vide Recent Correspondence in Daily Papers.)
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud, Fsq.
Sir,—My attention has been called not only by the outspoken
comments of the Press, but by the indignant questions of several
Members of that House of which I have the honour to be the greatest
ornament, to the fact that last month you sentenced a boy named
William Gonoff, and aged nine years, to fourteen days’ imprison-
ment for stealing a shilling’s-worth of turnips. An explanatio of
so marvellous a miscarriage of justice will oblige,
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Sir Historicus,—I sentenced the youth named William
Gonoff—whose right age is fifteen, by the bye—to ten days’ imprison-
ment for stealing a pound’s-worth of turnips, and for assaulting the
police. Will this suit you ? Yours truly, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud, Fsq.
Sir,—I am credibly informed that the child, William Gonoff,
was sentenced by you to a month’s hard labour for stealing six-
pennyworth of turnips, and that his age is five. Your explanation
is unsatisfactory. Yours truly, Historicus.
P.S.—You ought to have flogged him.
Ft ■om J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Historicus,—William Gonoff is forty-seven, and he was
sentenced to three days’ imprisonment for stealing two acres of
turnips, and for assaulting five policemen. Since then he has mur-
dered his grandmother, has committed bigamy, and has burnt a
church. Are you satisfied now ? Yours sincerely,
J. P. Stroud.
P.S.—I had no power to flog him.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
Sir,—The tone of your explanation is completely wrong. I repeat
you ought to have flogged William Gonoff.
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Old Man,—If you are so precious fond of flogging William
Gonoff, why didn’t you come and do it yourself ?
Yours ever, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
Sir,—I will let you know whom you are calling “ dear old man.”
I order the immediate release of William Gonoff.
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Ha ! ha! What a wag you are ! William Gonoff was released
four days before your first communication ever reached me. You
old quiz! Yours, my boy, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
Sir,—Why the deuce didn’t you tell me that William Gonoff
had been released before I commenced this weighty correspondence ?
Yours truly, Historicus.
From J. P. Stroud to the Home Secretary.
Dear Old Cussy,—Did you ever see Toole in Ici on parle Fran-
qais ? If not, get somebody to give you an order. I will reply as
Joes Mr. Toole in that play, that I didn’t teU you that William
Gonoff had been released before you commenced your correspond-
ence—“ ’Cos you didn’t arst me, ’cos you didn’t arst me.” I am
going to send this correspondence to Punch. Ta! ta! dear old
chappie! Yours for ever, J. P. Stroud.
From the Home Secretary to J. P. Stroud.
You may send your correspondence to the-
(And then the Home Secretary breaks into tears at the thoughts
that a career hitherto unsuspected of any too great softness of heart
should be tarnished by an uncalled-for exhibition of sentiment, not
to say sentimentality. Likewise having torn his hair at the reflec-
tion that victory rests for once with the purveyors of Justices’ justice,
he reads up the subject, and writes to the Times.)
Motto for Liberals, 1880.—“ This side up.”