_PUNCH_ AS A POLITICIAN.
_Punch's_ Attitude--His Whiggery--And Sincerity--Catholics and
Jews--Home Rule--European Politics--Prince Napoleon--_Punch's_
Mistakes--His Campaign against Sir James Graham--His Relations with
Foreign Powers--And Comprehensive Survey of Affairs.
The social and political attitude of _Punch_ to-day is a very different
thing from what it was when the paper first claimed public attention and
support. "When we are impecunious," says Mr. du Maurier, "we must needs
be democratic." And democratic _Punch_ was in Jerrold's era, although
from no mercenary or unworthy motive. Later on, the club and the
drawing-room frankly recognised the power wielded by the paper, and, by
that very acknowledgment, influenced it to an obvious degree. Then came
the sentiment of Church and State, and the Palmerston patriotic pose
that was most to the taste of the threepenny public; and for a long time
the plucky, cheery, careless, "_Civis-Romanus-Sum_," "hang-Reform"
statesman was the special pet of _Punch_, and more particularly of
Shirley Brooks. When that Editor died, Tom Taylor imparted a decidedly
Radical, anti-Beaconsfield, anti-Imperial turn; but since the _régime_
of Mr. Burnand a lighter and more non-committal attitude has been
adopted and maintained.
Speaking generally, the prevailing _Punch_ tradition with regard to
matters political--at least, in the belief of its conductors--has been
to hold the balance fairly between the parties, to avoid fixed and
bitter partisanships, to "hit all round" as occasion seemed to demand,
and to award praise where it appeared to be deserved. If there was to be
a general "list" or "lean," it was to be towards a moderate
Liberalism--towards sympathy with the popular cause of freedom both of
act and speech, and enthusiastic championship of the poor and oppressed.
If, especially within recent years, _Punch_ has claimed one merit more
than another, it is to as fair a neutrality as is possible to a
strong-minded individuality with unmistakable political views.
Conservatives have long since protested against what has been called its
"hideous Gladstonolatry and bourgeois Liberalism," and declaimed against
the occasional partisan spirit of the "Essence of Parliament." "There is
a popular periodical," said Mr. Gladstone, in his Edinburgh speech of
September 29th, 1893, "which, whenever it can, manifests the Liberal
sentiments by which it has been guided from the first. I mean the
periodical _Punch_." Indeed, to that party has always been given the
benefit of the doubt. But one of the chief organs of Radicalism[10] has
complained of an attack on a Liberal Cabinet as "merely a pictorial
insult;" and the professional Home Ruler has denounced with
characteristic emphasis the representation by _Punch_ of the Irish
voter, bound hand and foot, terrorised and intimidated by his priest,
who exclaims: "Stop there till you vote as I tell you, or it's neither
marry nor bury you I will!" From all of which it may fairly be deduced
that _Punch_, with occasional lapses of an excusable kind, has, on the
whole, fairly upheld his character for the neutrality proper to one who
is accepted as the National Satirist, even though--like the Irish
judge--"he is most just when he lanes a bit on my soide."
"The Table" has always shown an amalgam of Conservative and Liberal
instincts and leanings, though the former have never been those of the
"predominant partner." The constant effort of the Staff is to be fair
and patriotic, and to subordinate their personal views to the general
good. This is the first aim. For, whatever the public may think, neither
Editor nor Staff is bound by any consideration to any party or any
person, but hold themselves free to satirise or to approve "all round."
Disraeli they quizzed and caricatured freely; but they always admitted
his fine traits and brilliant talents. Gladstone they more consistently
glorified for his eloquence, high-mindedness, and skill; but from time
to time they would trounce him roundly for his vacillations or other
political shortcomings.
In the earlier days of _Punch_ it was more common to make a dead-set at
individuals--as at Lord Brougham, "Dizzy," Lord Aberdeen, and, during
his earlier career, John Bright. But many things were done forty years
ago which nowadays "the Table" would neither tolerate nor excuse--such
as certain attacks upon defenceless royalty (more particularly upon
Prince Albert) as being both unfair and in bad taste. The courteous
high-mindedness of Sir John Tenniel has made greatly for this mellowing
and moderation, to the point, indeed, that many complain that _Punch_ no
longer hits out straight from the shoulder. This peaceable tendency
obviously arises from neither fear nor sycophancy, but from an anxious
desire to be entirely just and good-natured, and to avoid coarseness or
breach of taste.
Much of the change in _Punch_ has simply been the inevitable
accompaniment of change in the times--in the tastes, manners, social
polish, and sensitive feelings of the courteous and urbane. It is so
easy to be strong in the sense in which an onion is strong; but _Punch_
has long since cast away that kind of force. Many and many a time an
admirable "subject" for a cartoon has been rejected--pointed,
picturesque, or droll, as the case may be--because some one has raised
the question, "But would that be quite fair?" Jerrold was bitterly
caustic and sometimes neither just nor merciful in his Quixotic tilting
at upper-class windmills; and Leech, in his earlier work, was often
fiercely drastic. But there was more democratic outspokenness, more
middle-class downrightness, and less of the Constitutional Club and
drawing-room element in those ante-du Maurier days. But men and artists
alter, and become moulded and modified by their environments, and it may
safely be said that there is to-day no effort on _Punch's_ part to be
"smart," anti-popular, anti-bourgeois, or anti-anything, save
anti-virulent and anti-vulgar.
In no department of public affairs has _Punch_ shown greater advance
than in that of the public Faith. _Punch_ the Religionist--I use the
expression in all seriousness--while sturdily maintaining his own
ground, and as the representative of "the great Protestant middle-class"
swiftly denouncing the slightest show of sacerdotalism, has displayed an
increasing tolerance and liberal-mindedness that were not his most
notable characteristics in his youthful days. High Church and Low,
bishops and clergy, Protestant and Catholic, from the Pope to Mr.
Spurgeon, have all at times come under his lash.
Mr. Punch has ever kept his eye attentively on the affairs of the
Church. In his first volume he supported the agitation against the
old-fashioned, high-panelled, curtained pew, at the same time cordially
endorsing the Temperance movement of the young Irish priest, Father
Mathew. The cause of the curate he has always upheld with a zeal that
has betrayed him on more than one occasion into injustice to the
bishops; wherein he has erred in company with his fellow-sage, the Sage
of Coniston. And the cause of the poor man, up to the point of Sunday
opening of museums and picture galleries, has always been an article of
his religious creed, although in a pulpit reference the Rev. A. G.
Girdlestone declared that _Punch's_ policy was temporarily reversed
during one editorship in consequence of its being found that the men on
the mechanical staff of the paper were themselves opposed to the
movement.
In _Punch's_ first decade Pope Pius IX. was popular with Englishmen and
with _Punch_ by reason of his liberalism. But towards the end of 1850
the cry of "Papal Aggression" broke out, and the popular excitement,
already aroused over Puseyism, was fanned to an extraordinary pitch. The
situation at that time is described in subsequent chapters dealing with
Richard Doyle and Cartoons; but reference must here be made to the
violence with which _Punch_ caught the fever--how he published a cartoon
(Sir John Tenniel's first) representing Lord John Russell as David
attacking Dr. Wiseman, the Roman Goliath.[11] In due time, however, the
excitement passed away. Dr. Wiseman received his Cardinal's hat, Lord
John was satisfied with having asserted the Protestant supremacy,
Richard Doyle left the paper, and nobody, except _Punch_, seemed a penny
the worse, save that the popular suspicion, once aroused, was not for
several years entirely allayed. The "Papal Aggression" agitation
smouldered on for a year or two in the paper; but _Punch_ was not too
much engrossed to be prevented from giving his support to Mr. Horsman's
Bill for enquiry into the revenues of the bishops of the Established
Church, whom, in one of Leech's cartoons, he represented as carrying off
in their aprons all the valuables on which they could lay their hands.
Thenceforward _Punch's_ religious war was directed chiefly against
Puseyism and its "toys"--by which were designated the cross,
candlesticks, and flowers. The Pope was still with him an object of
ridicule, and in one case at least of inexcusably coarse insult; but he
was by this time (1861) shorn of his temporal power, and had become the
"Prisoner of the Vatican;" and his "liberalism," so much applauded in
his ante-aggressive days, was all forgotten. Nevertheless, some of
_Punch's_ references were harmless and innocent enough, such as that in
which he asks, in 1861: "Why can the Emperor of the French never be
Pope?" and himself replies, "Because it is impossible that three crowns
can ever make one Napoleon."
Less fierce, but much more constant, was the ridicule meted out to the
Jews. The merry prejudice entertained by John Leech and Gilbert Abbott à
Beckett alike against the Jewish community was to some extent shared not
only by kindly Thackeray himself, but even by Jerrold, and was
expressive no doubt of the general feeling of the day. Mark Lemon
certainly did nothing to temper the flood of merciless derision which
_Punch_ for a while poured upon the whole house of Israel, and some of
Brooks's verses are to this day quoted with keen relish in anti-Semitic
circles. In his campaign against the sweaters in the early 'Forties a
picture appeared in the Almanac for 1845 in which such an employer was
represented by Leech as a Jew of aldermanic proportions, rich and
bloated in appearance and of monstrous ostentation and vulgarity. Yet
_Punch's_ hatred was really only skin-deep, or, at least, was directed
against manners rather than against men; and this fact, curiously
enough, gave rise to one of those misunderstandings of which the paper
has from time to time been the subject. In the spring of 1844 the
"Morning Post" was vigorously denounced by _Punch_ for suggesting such a
possibility as a "gentleman Jew," and proposed that the "accursed dogs"
had more than their rights in being spoken of as "persons of the Hebrew
faith." Thereupon a Jewish reader, considering that _Punch's_ expression
bordered upon rudeness, and that the sufferance which was his tribal
badge need not under the circumstances seal his lips, wrote to protest
against the "malice and grossness of language"--for he had failed to
appreciate _Punch's_ robust irony and too carefully veiled championship.
Then, in one of those generous moods which often directed Jerrold's pen,
_Punch_ explained. (Vol. VI., 1844, p. 106.) He pointed out how his
article had been directed against the "bygone bigotry and present
uncharitableness" of the "Morning Post;" he quoted Defoe's "Short Way
with Dissenters," in which the author satirically advocated their social
rights, as an example of how one may be misunderstood by the men they
desire to serve; he reminded his readers how, when "Gulliver's Travels"
was published, a certain bishop publicly proclaimed that he didn't
believe a word of it; and he asked if he--_Punch_--should complain,
then, when his advocacy of common rights and liberties of the Hebrew is
"arraigned of malice, prejudice, and jealousy." But the Jewish
Disabilities Removal Bill had not at that time been introduced.
It was in 1847 that this measure was brought in, and _Punch_ was nearly
as much alarmed as he subsequently was at the "Papal Aggression."
_Punch_ for a time was as strong on the subject as the fanatical Sir
Robert Inglis himself; and Leech's cartoon of Baron de Rothschild
trying to force his nose--the "thin end of the wedge," he called
it--between the doors of the House of Commons was regarded as a very
felicitous and brilliant hit. But even then _Punch_ was willing to let
the other side of the question be heard; and in an ingenious adaptation
of Shylock's soliloquy (p. 247, Vol. XIII., 1847) dedicated to Sir
Robert Inglis--beginning "Hath not a Jew brains?" and ending, "If we
obey your government, shall we have no hand in it? If we are like you in
the rest, we ought to resemble you in that"--the whole case of Lord John
Russell and the supporters of the measure was clearly put forth.
Similarly, when at the very time that _Punch_ was making the most of any
fun that could be got out of his Jewish butt, the "Strangers' Friend
Society" appealed for funds on the ground that the urgency of their
charitable needs would "dissolve even the hardest, the most magnetic
astringent Jewish mind," _Punch_ vigorously protested against the
quaintness of that virtue and charity which would batten upon the
faithful by tickling their pet prejudice against the Jews, and declared
that "the Society's healing goodness would be none the worse for not
spurting its gall at any portion of the family of men." And in more
recent times _Punch_ has carried his sympathy to its furthermost point
by the powerful cartoons published during the great persecutions of the
Jews in Russia, by which--for representing the Tsar, Alexander III., as
the New Pharaoh--he attained exclusion from the Holy Empire, and from
the mouthpiece of the Jewish community "gratitude in unbounded measure
for this great service in the cause of freedom and humanity."
In like manner, _Punch_ has displayed equal kindliness of feeling for
the Irish, though Home Rule never offered strong attraction to his
imagination or statesmanship. From the beginning he always showed a
genuine sympathy for what he considered genuine Irish sentiment and
suffering; but agitation, as material for political speculation, seldom
recommended itself to him. In 1844 (p. 254, Vol. VII.) a cartoon by
Leech was published (originally to have been called "Two of a Trade"),
in which the Tsar and Queen Victoria are chatting at a table. On the
wall behind the autocrat hangs a map of Poland; near the Queen, one of
Ireland; and she, holding up her forefinger in gentle self-admission of
error, and in friendly remonstrance with her august visitor, says
softly, "Brother, brother, we're both in the wrong!" Soon afterwards
_Punch_ became, it was said, "anti-Irish;" or, as he himself declared,
he could not confound Irish misdeeds with Irish wrongs; and it was with
that view that he was wont to picture the Irish political
outrage-mongering peasant as a cross between a garrotter and a gorilla.
Of course, in their rivalries Daniel O'Connell and Smith O'Brien were
satirised as the "Kilkenny Cats;" but when the "Great Agitator" died in
1847, _Punch_ showed how sincere was his sympathy with a people who,
rightly or wrongly, were mourning the death of their leader, and who at
the time were dying in thousands from the famine that was then black
over the land. Nevertheless, he applauded with delight the thumping
majority that negatived in Parliament the motion for Repeal of the
Union. Then came a Coercion Bill, and continued seething discontent; but
the sad, sweet face of Hibernia then as ever claimed all the beauty that
lay in the cartoonist's pencil. And a year later, when the Queen visited
Ireland, and a Special Court of Common Council was held to consider the
propriety of purchasing estates there, _Punch_ showed "Gog and Magog
helping Paddy out of the Mess," and "Sir Patrick Raleigh"--a handsome
Irish peasant of the right sort--laying his mantle across a puddle, and
smiling as he prays, "May it please your Majesty to tread on the tail of
my coat."
So _Punch_ in his Irish, as in his English, home policy became, and
maintained the attitude of, an Old Liberal, an elderly member of the
Reform Club, with just enough desire for reform to be written down a
Radical by Tories, and enough Conservatism and patriotism to be
denounced as a Jingo, or its equivalent, by their opponents. But he went
steadily on; and when Mr. Gladstone became converted to Home Rule,
_Punch_ declined to be committed to the policy. He maintained his
independence and his Whiggery, in spite of the personal feeling and
friendship of the chief proprietor of the paper for the aged statesman.
Private sentiment was sacrificed to public need, and the position of
_Punch_, and his character for political stability, were thereby further
assured.
* * * * *
At the time of _Punch's_ birth the Queen had sat four years upon the
throne, and had recently entered into happy wedded life, Louis Napoleon
was living a life in London not at all upon the Imperial plan; Señorita
de Montijo, the future Empress, was a young lady of small expectations
in Spain--the daughter of the Comtesse de Montijo, of the Kirkpatrick
family; and the Emperor William, who was destined in the fulness of time
to crush them both, was a political star of at most the fourth
magnitude. Bismarck, Gladstone, and Disraeli were names already known to
the public--Mr. Disraeli, indeed, being of those who took part in the
debate the result of which was to turn out Lord Melbourne's Government
(August, 1841) and send in Sir Robert Peel's, in which Mr. Gladstone
took his place as Vice-President of the Board of Trade and Master of the
Mint. But, like _Punch_, they were but beginning life; Mr. Gladstone was
a Tory and High Churchman; Free Trade and the Corn Law Repeal were as
questions hardly yet "acute;" and neither Bright nor Cobden had entered
the House of Commons. _Punch_, therefore, entered the field at an
interesting moment, and began by boldly proclaiming his impartiality:
"POLITICS.--'PUNCH' has no party prejudices--he is conservative in
his opposition to Fantoccini and political puppets, but a
progressive Whig in his love of _small change_."
When Disraeli, equally with his rival, changed his party, the fact was
recorded in a happy parody of Hood's well-known verses:--
"Young Ben he was a nice young man,
An author by his trade,
He fell in love with Poly Tics,
And soon an M.P. made.
He was a Rad-ical one day,
He met a Tory crew,
His Poly Tics he cast away,
And then turned Tory too."
Soon he was leader of the little "Young England Party," and was to be
seen in _Punch's_ cartoon as a viper gnawing at the "old file," Sir
Robert Peel. Then came the triumph of Free Trade, duly celebrated by
John Leech in one of his most light-hearted cartoons.
The fatal year of 1848 opened with the memorable letter of the Prince de
Joinville, at that time a young man of thirty, which set half Europe
looking to their national defences, but which pretended to be aimed only
at an invasion of England. There was, of course, a scare, not to say a
panic, in official circles; but _Punch_ was one of the few who kept
their heads, making capital galore out of the situation. He never tired
of deriding the fiery young prince, who was only too glad a little later
on to "invade" England in the character of refugee. The French army, he
declared (by the pen of Percival Leigh), would land, after suffering all
the tortures of sea-sickness, carefully watched by the Duke of
Wellington from a Martello tower. Arrived in London, the invaders would
arrest M. Jullien, lay siege to 85, Fleet Street, but raise it forthwith
on the appearance of Mr. Punch and Toby, who would follow the fugitives
in hot pursuit. Although _Punch_ ridiculed the matter thus, he yet
proposed the formation of a Volunteer Corps, to be called "_Punch's_
Rifles;" and it is to be observed that he thus forestalled by four years
the actual establishment of the Exeter Volunteers. Nevertheless, _Punch_
seriously threatened the movement when it did come with his "Brook Green
Volunteer;" yet a few years later, when the idea was revived by the
starting of Rifle Clubs, with the subsequent notion of transforming them
into regiments, _Punch_ lent his aid. He would chaff them, of
course--for it was his business so to do--but he was proud of them all
the same, and loudly applauded the spirit that inspired them. The
Volunteers, as he told the French, were "the boys who minded his shop;"
and more than one of his Staff enrolled themselves in the patriotic
cause.
Chartism, though in its programme and aspirations respected by _Punch_,
was despised for its management and mismanagement, and was made the
subject of much excellent fooling. But the stormy European outlook gave
him far more concern. In one of his cartoons all the Sovereigns are
shown in their cock-boats, storm-tossed in the Sea of Revolution, the
Pope--still in the full enjoyment of his temporal power--being the only
one really comfortable and really popular. As the Champion of Liberty
the Pontiff is at various times portrayed as pressing "a draught of a
Constitution" on the kings of Sardinia and Naples and the Duke of
Tuscany, dealing a knock-down blow to the "despotism" of Austria, and
spitting her eagle on a bayonet; altogether justifying his reputation
(for how short a time to last!) for stability, magnanimity, and love of
progress.
In this same year of 1848 Prince Louis Napoleon made his second descent
upon France, and _Punch_, mindful of the fiasco of the first, prepared
to give him a warm reception. His treatment from the beginning of the
Pretender and Prince-President was that of an unblushing adventurer and
charlatan. In course of time, as the Emperor became of importance in his
day, he relaxed his severity to some extent, and at times at least
showed him the respect due to an ally. On other occasions he would
relapse into his original practice of violent and scornful attack--to
such a point, as is seen elsewhere, as to extort the vigorous protests
of Thackeray and Ruskin. "It is a tradition," it is said, "that when,
during the _entente cordiale_, the Emperor and Empress paid a visit to
Her Majesty in London, two cartoons were suggested at the _Punch_ Table
to celebrate the event. The first was heroic, representing Britannia
welcoming the nephew of the great Napoleon to her shores; the second, a
'brushed-up,' refugee-looking individual ringing at the front-door bell
of Buckingham Palace, with the legend 'Who would have thought it?' The
second was selected."
The Prince-President as "The Brummagem Bonaparte out for a Ride" (the
cartoon which helped to lose Thackeray to _Punch_), galloping a blind
horse at a precipice, was certainly in the spirit of English popular
feeling; and even the coronation of the prince made for a time but
little difference in _Punch's_ demeanour. But when the Russian
difficulty came in sight, and "the Crimean sun rose red," Napoleon III.
was treated with a certain measure of begrudged courtesy; and when the
war broke out, the tone was even cordial, and the sovereign of our
allies was actually represented as a not altogether undesirable
acquaintance. The close of the war, however, left matters much where
they were, for the peace, in spite of all rejoicings, was thought to
come too soon, in order to suit the convenience of the Emperor. Once
more he was distrusted in his Italian campaign. The sincerity of his
intimate letter to the Comte de Persigny, the French Ambassador to
England, was received with little credence, and John Bull replies to its
tenor thus:--
"What _has_ been _may_ recur. Should a Brummagem Cæsar
Try a dash at John Bull, after conqu'ring the Gauls,
I intend he shall find the achievement a teaser,
What with Armstrongs, long Enfields, and stout wooden walls."
The visit of the Empress Eugénie to the Queen at Windsor Castle, and the
abolition of passports for Englishmen in France (which _Punch_ accepted
as a latch-key, "to come and go as he liked"), disposed the paper a
little more kindly towards the Emperor; but it was for the
Franco-Prussian War to bring out the full strength and the true
perspicuity of _Punch's_ judgment. There was little fooling here. His
warning was serious and solemn; he followed every act of the great drama
with breathless interest and with unsurpassed power of apprehension and
pictorial demonstration; and his sympathy for the misfortunes of "la
grande nation," and his horror at the terrors of the Commune, did not
prevent his pity going forth to the broken leader who had played and
lost, and who returned to England in a plight far sadder and more
desperate than that in which he had lived his Bohemian life thirty years
before.
In considering _Punch's_ attitude during his long career, it must be
borne in mind that he has always aimed at representing the sentiments of
the better part of the country--seeing with London's eyes, and judging
by London standards. _Punch_ is an Englishman of intense patriotism, but
primarily a Citizen of London, and a far truer incarnation of it--for
all his chaff of aldermen and turtle--than the Lord Mayor and Chairman
of the County Council put together. "But the aspects under which either
British lion, Gallic eagle, or Russian bear have been regarded by our
contemplative serial," says Ruskin, in a passage which to some extent
bears out this contention, "are unfortunately dependent on the fact that
all his three great designers (Tenniel, Leech, and du Maurier) are, in
the most narrow sense, London citizens. I have said that every great man
belongs not only to his own city, but to his own village. The artists of
_Punch_ have no village to belong to; the street-corner is the face of
the whole earth, and the only two quarters of the heavenly horizon are
the east and west--End." Especially did _Punch_ represent English
feeling during the great reforms of the 'Forties and 'Fifties. Of course
he made mistakes, and many of them. "He who never made a mistake never
made anything." He ground the No-Popery organ; he defended the
Ecclesiastical Titles Act; he ridiculed the Jewish Disabilities Bill; he
fostered the idea of relentless vengeance on the Indian mutineers and
rebels, and bitterly opposed Lord Canning's more humane policy;[12] he
issued cartoons during the Secession War--to use the words of Mr. Henry
James--"under an evil star;" he aimed poisoned shafts at Louis Philippe;
he scoffed, at first, at the Great Exhibition of 1851, and seriously
retarded its progress; he failed to appreciate Lord Aberdeen's
statesmanship, like the rest of his contemporaries, during the Crimean
War; he joked at Turner, and sneered at the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood;
he attacked Bright and Cobden for their attitude during the Chinese
War; he denounced Carlyle's "Latter-day Pamphlets" as mere "barking and
froth;" he ridiculed Joseph Hume with a cruel persistence that called
forth a passionate protest from the "Westminster Review" against the
scurrilous attack on one who was "too good" for it, for which _Punch_
handsomely apologised on Hume's death (March 10th, 1855); and generally,
in his own words, "at this early date Mr. Punch in his exuberance wrote
much that he would now hesitate to commit to paper, and for which, if it
did appear, he would certainly be taken severely to task by a hundred
correspondents, of whom a majority would be of the strait-laced order,
and the minority would be largely recruited from North Britain."
[Illustration: LEECH'S ORIGINAL SKETCH FOR "PEEL'S DIRTY BOY."]
[Illustration: "PEEL'S DIRTY LITTLE BOY."
_Dame Peel:_ "Drat the boy! He's always in a mess."
(_From the Cartoon by Leech in "Punch," Vol. VIII., p. 145. March 29th,
1845._)]
But the politician who suffered most from _Punch_--and perhaps the most
undeservedly--was that most unpopular of a long line of unpopular Home
Secretaries, Sir James Graham. He had joined Peel's Cabinet in 1842, on
the fall of Lord Melbourne's Ministry, and nothing that he did could
command the approval of his critics, especially those on _Punch_. His
capital offence was directing the opening of certain of Mazzini's
letters in consequence of the statements made to our Government by that
of Naples, to the effect that plots were being carried on--of which the
brilliant and popular Italian refugee was the centre--to excite an
insurrection in Italy. "The British Government," reported the House of
Commons Committee of Inquiry afterwards appointed, "issued a warrant to
open and detain M. Mazzini's letters. Such information deduced from
these letters as appeared to the British Government calculated to
frustrate this attempt was communicated to a foreign Power."
Thereupon Mr. Duncombe, M.P., upon the complaints of Mazzini, W. J.
Linton (the well-known Chartist, and more distinguished wood-engraver),
and others, that their letters had been secretly opened, charged Sir
James Graham with the violation of correspondence (June 14th, 1844), and
though not at first eliciting much information, succeeded in obtaining
the appointment of a Committee, though a "secret" one; and Lord Radnor
effected the same object in the Lords. The result was favourable to the
Minister; but the popular feeling roused by it was intense, and _Punch_,
up in arms at once at this supposed violation of the rights of the
subject, fanned the excitement he shared. He immediately published, on
July 6th, the most offensive attack he could devise. This consisted in
the famous "Anti-Graham Envelope" and "Wafers"--the latter _extra
strongly gummed_.
The former was drawn by John Leech--a sort of burlesque of the Mulready
envelope--and was afterwards appropriately engraved by Mr. W. J. Linton,
whose share in the agitation was a considerable one. The circulation
attained by this envelope was very wide, and although I have not
ascertained that many were actually passed through the General Post
Office, it certainly brought a flood of bitter ridicule on the
unfortunate Minister. In addition to this, there was published, on the
clever initiation of Henry Mayhew, the sheet of "Anti-Graham
Wafers"--an instrument of diabolical torture for the unhappy Secretary,
who already figured as "Paul Pry" in half a hundred of the more
important papers. In this sheet, 10 inches by 7-3/4 inches in size,
drawn by H. G. Hine, there were printed sixteen wafers, in green ink, in
the midst of a witty design, in brown, that bore the devices of a snake
in the grass, a cat-o'-nine-tails, a kettle steaming the fastening of a
letter, and other suggestive personalities. These were supposed to be
cut up and used as wafers on envelopes, and that they were so used is
probable, in view of their extreme rarity at the present day. They were
issued at twopence the sheet; and their epigrammatic cuts and
accompanying legends were in _Punch's_ best vein.
[Illustration: THE ANTI-GRAHAM ENVELOPE.
(_Designed by John Leech._)]
_Punch's_ example was promptly followed by that class of publisher who
lives by trading on the ideas of others, and in the windows of many
booksellers of the commoner class, envelopes in the shape of padlocks
were offered for sale, the motto on them running "Not to be Grahamed."
_Punch_ itself followed up the scent, and gave drawings of "Mercury
giving Sir James Graham an insight into Letters" (with the aid of a
steam-kettle), of "The Post Office Peep-Show, a Penny a Peep," in which
foreign sovereigns, on paying their money to Showman Graham, are
permitted to violate the secrecy of British correspondence; while a
notice from St. Martin's-le-Grand informs his Continental clients that
"on and after the present month the following alterations will take
place in the opening of letters:"--
Letters
Posted at Opened at
9 A.M. 10 A.M.
10 A.M. 11 A.M.
12 A.M. 2 P.M.
2 P.M. 4 P.M.
4 P.M. 6 P.M.
Of course, this was all very unfair and savagely amusing, but much was
forgiven for the cleverness of the hits, and the liberty-loving notions
that inspired them.
The "railway mania," which had been developing during these years, had
from the first been viewed with alarm by _Punch_, who, with his
customary level-headedness, foresaw the crash and the reaction that were
soon to follow. And when they came, in 1849, he pointed solemnly to the
truth of his teaching, and to the sadness of the moral, with the picture
of "King Hudson off the Line." Nothing could represent the situation
more eloquently or more concisely.
A noteworthy incident occurred in connection with the Greek question of
1850, when the English fleet threatened to blockade the Piræus. _Punch_
was indignant at this high-handed show of strength towards the little
kingdom, and taking the mean-looking, grovelling British Lion by the ear
(in his cartoon) asks him, "Why don't you hit someone of your own size?"
With the exception of the occasion when he disrespectfully represented
the noble beast as stuffed and moth-eaten, this is the only "big cut"
wherein the Lion has been unworthily treated, or on which, in foreign
politics, _Punch_ has failed to back up his own Government.
[Illustration: THE ANTI-GRAHAM WAFERS.
(_Designed by H. G. Hine._)]
When Kossuth visited London in 1851, _Punch's_ heart, like that of the
rest of England, went out to the patriot. "It was not Louis Kossuth
whom the thousands gazed upon and cheered," wrote _Punch_. "It was
Hungary--bound and bleeding, but still hopeful, resolute, defying
Hungary;" and it may be observed that for many years _Punch_ sided, for
one reason or another, with Austria's successive adversaries.
It was in the same year that Lord Palmerston first appeared on _Punch's_
scene, and then in his own selected _rôle_ of "Judicious Bottle-holder."
He was represented as officiating thus at the little affair between
"Nick the Bear" and "Young Europe." From that time forward he always
appeared as a sporting character, and rather gained than lost in popular
favour by the treatment. Another début the following year, among the
repeated appearances of "Dizzy," Napoleon, Pam, and Lord John, was that
of John Bright. He is shown in Quaker costume, examining the new-born
baby (the new Reform Bill) through an eye-glass, while Lord John, its
parent, stands by and hears the dry verdict that it is "not quite so
fine a child as the last." This eye-glass perplexed John Bright a good
deal, because, said he, he had "never worn such a thing in his life." He
did not see that the glass had here, no doubt, not so much reference to
him, as to the smallness of the birth examined by its aid.
Protection was still a subject of debate, but not for long. In 1852
appeared the admirable cartoon in which Cobden--suddenly come very much
to the fore in _Punch's_ pages--is represented as Queen Eleanor, who
advances on Disraeli, a grotesque "Fair Rosamond," with a poison-bowl of
"Free Trade" in one hand and the dagger of "Resignation" in the other.
Disraeli accepted the former, and _Punch_ and the Free Traders rejoiced.
But in their triumph they did not spare the feelings of the convert,
whom they had dubbed "The Political Chameleon;" but at least they
admitted the importance of the man, who is no longer sneeringly alluded
to as "Benjamin Sidonia," no more represented as an ill-bred schoolboy
made up of impudence and malice--unprincipled, vicious, and conceited.
In the following year _Punch_ sounded his first note of warning of the
approaching "Eastern Question," when in the cartoon of "The Turkey in
Danger," the Sick Bird is shown in the powerful hug of the Russian Bear;
and "The Emperor's Cup for 1853" illustrates still further the
prescience of _Punch_. Nevertheless, as has been said, he could not
appreciate a _suaviter_ policy, and in a cartoon entitled "Not a Nice
Business" (p. 271, Vol. XXVI.) Lord Aberdeen, the Premier, is shown
engaged in cleaning the boots of the Tsar.
How the Crimean War was followed by _Punch_ in a magnificent series of
pictures, chiefly from the hand of Sir John Tenniel, as well as in that
culminating effort of Leech's, "General Février," there is no need here
to explain. But during the peace negotiations--which were delayed
through the Russians firing on a truce-party, called "The Massacre of
Hango"--the representation was unjustly made by _Punch_ that the King of
Prussia was a confirmed toper, and the charge was offensively maintained
by pen and pencil. This so angered the King that none of the English
newspaper correspondents (one of whom he supposed to be the original
perpetrator of the libel) was after that allowed within the precincts of
the palace, until at last Mr. T. Harrington Wilson, one of _Punch's_
draughtsmen, was admitted on behalf of the "Illustrated London News."
No sooner was the Crimean War at an end, than the reprisals which
developed into the Chinese War involved this country in an expense of
four millions. In spite of the importance and gravity of the
undertaking, _Punch_ vigorously supported Lord Palmerston in his
campaign, and mockingly showed "The Great Warriors Dah-Bee and Cob-Den"
vainly trying to overturn his Government. He made good sport of the
Celestials, as a matter of course, but his mortification was extreme on
learning that the incidental outlay would delay the hoped-for repeal of
the paper duty. He found a small outlet for his feelings in the cartoon
representing a Chinese mandarin as "The New Paper-weight" (p. 20, Vol.
XXXIX.), but in the end was entirely conciliated by the terms of the
Chinese Convention, and the payment of a handsome indemnity--the subject
of his first cartoon in 1861 being "A Cheer for Elgin."
Italy's successful struggle for independence received great attention
and sympathy from _Punch_--the greater, no doubt, since the "Papal
Aggression" had taught him to look askance at the Vatican; but he
regarded with extreme and well-justified scepticism the genuineness of
Louis Napoleon's alleged disinterestedness in the interests of peace. He
is ironically shown (October 13th, 1860) as "The Friend in Need"
advising the Pope, "There, cut away quietly and leave me your keys. Keep
up your spirits, and I'll look after your little temporal matters."
Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel were regarded by _Punch_ with the greatest
favour (just as the latter was said to be regarded privately by the
Pope), and United Italy was enthusiastically hailed by him (March, 1861)
as "The Latest Arrival" at the European Evening Party conjointly
presided over by John Bull and Britannia.
From first to last _Punch_ has always been an Imperialist--Imperial
Defence being warmly taken up at periodical intervals, and Imperial
Federation during these latter years adopted as one of the planks of his
Punch-and-Judy platform. Imperial Defence as a cry and a scare, begun in
1848 on the action of the Prince de Joinville, was continued in 1860
(cartoon, August 4th), when a large sum was spent upon arsenals and
dockyards--to some extent, no doubt, in view of Napoleon's
double-dealing in the matter of Nice and Savoy. "Ribs of steel are our
ships, Engineers are our men," he sings, under the new order of things
in naval construction--
"We're steady, boys, steady,
But always unready;
We've just let the French get before us again."
The American War of Secession; the throne of Greece put up to auction;
Poland in chains, defying the Russian Bear; the ghost of Charles I.
warning the King of Prussia, by the block to which he points, of the
punishment that awaits the would-be despot; Napoleon crushing the
prostrate figure of France; the wars between "father-in-law Denmark,"
Germany, and Austria, and between the latter two (as Robbers in the
Wood); Reform; Irish Church Disestablishment; "Dizzy" as the
Premier-Peri entering the gates of Paradise, or, bound to the Ixion's
wheel of "Minority," hurled forth by Hercules-Bright, with the severe
approval of Juno-Britannia and Jupiter-Gladstone; the Franco-Prussian
War; the Royal marriages; the occupation of Egypt; and the creation of
the "Empress of India;"--all the subject-matter, indeed, of home and
foreign politics, and of general public interest, have been touched upon
by _Punch_ as they occurred, lightly, but often probed _à fond_. His
attitude seldom caused much surprise, for his opinions and views could
generally be foretold. It was the manner in which they were put forth
that carried weight and influence; they were the nation's ideas
"... to advantage dressed,
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well expressed."
The student of the times, if he would know how public affairs struck the
public mind during that period, can assuredly find no truer, no more
accurate indication than is offered by the perusal of _Punch's_ pages.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] "Daily Chronicle," August 26th, 1892.
[11] This, with the Pharaoh pro-Jewish picture at the time of the
Russian persecutions, is said to be the only cartoon founded on a
strictly Biblical or Scriptural subject ever published in _Punch_.
[12] _See_ p. 108, Vol. XXXIII.:--
"And woe to the hell-hounds! Right well may they fear
A vengeance--ay, darker than war ever knew;
When Englishmen, charging, exchange the old cheer
For, 'REMEMBER THE WOMEN AND BABES WHOM THEY SLEW!'
* * * * *
"And terrified India shall tell to all time,
How Englishmen paid her for murder and lust;
And stained not their fame with one spot of the crime
That brought the rich splendour of Delhi to dust."