_PUNCH_ ON THE WAR-PATH: ATTACK.
_Punch_ lays about Him--Assaults the "Morning Post"--The Factitious
"Jenkins"--Thackeray's Farewell--Mrs. Gamp (the "Morning Herald")
and Mrs. Harris (the "Standard")--_Lèse Majesté!_--The "Standard"
Fulminates a Leader--The Retort--His Loyalty--Banters the Prince
Consort--Tribute on the Prince's Death--_Punch's_ Butts: Lord
William Lennox--Jullien--Sir Peter Laurie--Harrison
Ainsworth--Lytton--Turner--A Fallacy of Hope--Burne-Jones--Charles
Kean--S. C. Hall as "Pecksniff"--James Silk Buckingham and the
"British and Foreign Destitute"--Alfred Bunn--_Punch's_ Waterloo:
"A Word with Punch"--Bunn, Hot and Cross--A Second "Word" Prepared,
but never Uttered--Other Points of Attack.
Though for many years _Punch_ has claimed to be "everybody's friend," he
would certainly not have done so during the earlier part of his career.
Then he was constantly in the wars, not merely because he was
criticising public men, attacking abuses, and making sport of his
favourite butts; but because he had not yet learned to break away from
the journalistic duelling that prevailed. In these more sophisticated
days it is the usual aim of every prominent journal to ignore as far as
possible the existence of its rivals; then, it was thought that that
existence could be best undermined, if not absolutely cut short, by
direct attack. Party spirit ran very high; and to _Punch's_ undoubted
strengthen serious writing was added a power of pungent wit and sarcasm
unequalled by any rival. He thus became a very formidable adversary; and
he knew it. But he did not put forth his full strength until he felt
sure of his own firm establishment; nor did he turn his _bâton_ upon his
brothers in the press until he had made a lively start upon individual
statesmen and private persons, and formally set them up as his own
particular Aunt Sallies for private and public practice.
His first onslaught on the daily press was made upon the "Morning Post"
(p. 126, Vol. IV.), by the hand, not of Thackeray, as has hitherto been
believed, but of Douglas Jerrold, under the title of "The 'Post' at the
Opera." The tone of that newspaper was irresistible to the democrats of
_Punch_; and Thackeray, Leech, and à Beckett took up the running with
great glee. Jerrold and Thackeray chose to personify the paper by the
creation of "Jenkins," and the "Jenkins Papers" soon became a recognised
feature and one of the standard jokes of the paper. Leech's
illustrations were every bit as good as the others' text; and even when
the gentle Hine was called upon to make sketches upon the same subject,
he found himself inspired like the rest. "Jenkins," the toady, and
"Lickspittleoff," his "Russian editor," were grand sport in the office,
and their example was followed--not a little to their disgust--by the
"Great Gun" and other papers. Soon after his first introduction (p. 123,
Vol. V.) "Jenkins" was cast aside as a joke played out, and Thackeray
took leave of him in the following amazing lines:--
"PUNCH'S PARTING TRIBUTE."
"Oh! Jenkins, homme du peuple--mangez bien![18]
Désormais avec toi nous ferons rien,
Vous êtes tout usé--chose qui montre la corde,[19]
Nos lecteurs étaient mal de toi d'abord;
Allez-vous-en--votre bâton coupez vite,
En _Ponch_ jamais votre nom--désormais sera dite."
But when the possibilities of "Jenkins" were fully realised, he was
revived, and for some years did excellent service as a subject for
humorous attack.
A more serious campaign upon which _Punch_ now entered was that against
the "Standard" and the "Morning Herald." He had with some astuteness,
and doubtless not without sincerity, ranged himself on the side of the
"Times," and threw himself into the fray with all the zest and some of
the irresponsibility of the licensed jester.[20] "Martin Chuzzlewit"
had already seized upon the town, and the names of Mrs. Gamp and Mrs.
Harris were on everybody's lips. _Punch_ chose to assume that the
"Morning Herald" and the "Standard"--morning and evening papers then
which represented the Conservative party, both of them until 1857
belonging to one proprietor--were edited respectively by the two ladies
aforesaid. The "Standard" was very wroth. It would not have been so sore
perhaps at being dubbed "Betsy Prig;" but, being in fact almost a
reprint of the "Herald," the suggestion of "Mrs. Harris"--a creature of
no existence, the mere reflex of Mrs. Gamp's own inane and besodden
brain--was too calmly provoking, as it was meant to be, to be borne in
silence. These two journals were highly unpopular at the time; for the
"Manchester School" was making headway, and Free Trade was already a
powerful and significant cry. So when _Punch_ laughed at them for
two--though really one--disreputable old women, and Leech's inimitable
pencil typified them as such, in mob-cap and pattens, the public laughed
with him, whatever their own political opinion might be. It should be
noted, however, that _Punch's_ first brush with the "Herald" was
personal, not political. In February, 1843, the latter journal had
fathered upon _Punch_ a poor joke of which he was entirely innocent, and
which he repudiated in an article entitled "Impudent Attempt at Fraud."
The quarrel thus begun in fun was continued in earnest, and soon the
"Herald," as a representative of public opinion, had no more damaging
assailant than "our humorous contemporary."
Now, in November, 1845, there appeared a reference to "Mrs. Harris,
Editress of the Standard," as well as a drawing by Leech, called
"Maternal Solicitude," which was intended to satirise the snobbery of
persons who name their children after the Royal Family. It represents
the visit of one lady to another, while a pair of repulsive-looking
brats of one of them make up the group. "And the dear children?" asks
the friend. "Why," replies the fond mother, "Alexandrina Victoria is a
good deal better; but dear little Albert here is still very delicate."
Thereupon the "Standard" opened the floodgates of its anger in a leading
article, the whole tone of which is a curious contrast to its dignity
and moderation at the present day. In the course of its outburst it
said:--
Still not one word from the "Times" in support of its charge of the
exercise of Court influence at the Windsor Election. As usual,
however, ... its _toadies_ are active and noisy.... To-day we, of
course, find _Punch_ the most abject, probably, of all the "Times"
_toadies_, discharging the duties of its mean avocation in an
article libelling the successful candidate, libelling the military,
libelling the young gentlemen of Eton, and ascribing Colonel Reid's
return to "kitchen-stairs influence" emanating from the Castle.....
If there were any fun in the article to which we refer, we might
forgive the malice and falsehood, as we are all too much disposed
to do, for the joke's sake; but dull as all the articles of _Punch_
have been lately growing, this article on the Windsor Election is
the stupidest that we have seen in its columns--a mere display of
heavy spitefulness. We should probably have overlooked this piece
of impertinence had _Punch_ confined itself to letterpress in its
_toady_ vindication of the quarrel of the "Times;" but in the 222nd
page of the number which contains the Windsor Election article,
there is a disgusting caricature of the Queen and her family, the
most false and unjust in what it implies that it is possible to
conceive, and the most offensive to the feelings of a mother. The
effect of such an insult to a Sovereign the object of her people's
respect and love will, we imagine, be different from what the
"Times" and its _toadies_ anticipate. At all events, such insults
will not, in the absence of all proof, render credible the false
allegation of the exercise of Court influence, or enable the
"Times" to get rid of our challenge, which we again repeat--this is
a point from which we shall not be driven, until we have a direct
answer from the "Times" itself, not from its _toadies_. The Queen
may be libelled as the _Punch_, "Times," and "Examiner" libel her
Majesty, if Sir Frederick Thesiger permit; but our Sovereign shall
not be belied while we have the power to expose the fabricators of
falsehood and their fabrications.
[Illustration: MATERNAL SOLICITUDE.
"And the dear children?"
"Why, Alexandrina Victoria is a good deal better; but dear little Albert
here is still very delicate."
(_Drawn by John Leech. From "Punch," Nov. 23rd, 1845._)]
One may well wonder whether the "Standard" was really serious, or only
"making believe" in order to strengthen its attack upon the "Times." But
it suited _Punch_ to take the outburst seriously, though with provoking
calmness. First retorting that it is well that the editress of the
"Standard"--he invariably referred to "the _editress_"--wears pattens as
a precaution which the nature of her walks renders very necessary,
although they are constantly tripping her up, _Punch_ quietly remarked
that "'Our Grandmother' must surely have taken an additional drop of
'something comfortable';" "and Leech parodied Phiz" etching of Mrs. Gamp
and Betsy Prig, in which "the editress" declares, "As for that nasty,
hojus _Punch_, I'm dispoged to scratch 'is hi's out a'most. What I ses,
I ses; and what I ses, I sticks to." The campaign was conducted with
considerable spirit by Gilbert à Beckett and Percival Leigh, with slight
assistance from Horace Mayhew; and was continued with remorseless gaiety
and bitterness for some years. In the pages here devoted to Thackeray
reference is made to the personal feeling which existed between him and
the "Morning Post" and to the effective retaliation on the part of that
newspaper.
_Punch's_ loyalty, as a matter of fact, has always been above suspicion
and above proof. Democrat as he was, and independent in his views, he
was as indignant as the "Standard" itself when the half-demented Bean
made his attempt upon the Queen's life; yet gleeful to a degree when his
Liege Lady was called upon to pay income-tax precisely as all her
subjects did. The birth of the Prince of Wales, which coincided with
Lord Mayor's Day, provided _Punch_ with an opportunity for showing much
loyalty and more wit; and the interest with which he followed the
education and amusements of the Heir-Apparent, the anxiety with which he
made suggestions for the best appointments, in his nursery-household, to
the office of the "Master of the (Rocking) Horse," the "Clerk of the
Pea-Shooter," and so forth; the delight with which, by the hand of Leech
(1846), he published a charming cartoon of the lad as a man-o'-war's
man, thus popularising the dress of English boys, while the sketch
itself was widely reproduced as a bronze or plaster group--all this
proved the benevolent sentiments he entertained towards the Royal
Family. This benevolence has cropped up again and again--when the Prince
visited Canada and America (1860); when, in 1861, he went up to Trinity
College, Cambridge (the Mayor and Corporation coming in for severe
criticism, however, for their snobbish Address); when he married; when
he fell ill and recovered; and when he celebrated his Jubilee--on which
occasion _Punch_ declared that "the longer he knew him the better he
liked him"--a sentiment the genuineness of which could hardly have been
questioned by any but the blindest of critics. From first to last
_Punch_ has been a respectful godfather, and a wise and kindly guardian.
Towards the Queen herself _Punch_ has shown unswerving chivalry and
reverence, even during the shouting days when democracy was more noisily
republican than it is to-day. The Queen figures often in the earlier
cartoons, and the care with which the draughtsmen sought to do justice
to the pure outline of her fair face is at least a tribute to their
good taste. _Punch_ never affected to regard her as a mere figurehead,
but always represented her in a position of authority, her Ministers in
character of domestic servants taking her instructions, and not at all
tendering advice; and every important incident in the life of the Queen
has been touched upon with the utmost respect and sympathy.
But with the Prince Consort the case was somewhat different. As Mr.
Burnand and Mr. Arthur à Beckett have written[21]:--
"It is strange to note that, until the hour of his death, the man
whose memory is now universally respected was highly unpopular with
the general public. The Democritus of Fleet Street was, and is,
essentially representative, and the popular opinion of the merits
or demerits of H.R.H. is constantly shown. Only a few weeks after
the cartoon" [of the Prince Consort tying up his door-knocker on
the occasion of the birth of the Princess Beatrice] "Mr. Punch is
drawn looking at the portrait of the Prince Consort at a review at
the Royal Academy, and saying, "No. 24. A field-marshal; h'm--very
good indeed. What sanguinary engagement can it be?" That these
satirical observations were made simply at Prince Albert's expense,
and were not intended to reflect upon the Queen or the rest of the
Royal Family, is shown by the extremely hearty manner in which the
marriage of the Princess Royal was welcomed by Mr. Punch as
representing the English feeling. John Bull is heard saying, as he
hands over to the Imperial Princess of Germany her dowry, 'There,
my child! God bless you! And may you make as good a wife as your
mother.'"
It is probable that the real source of the Prince Consort's unpopularity
was his foreign nationality, added to the ignorance of the people of his
enthusiasm and indefatigable efforts for the public weal. His rapid
promotion in military rank, already referred to, was not appreciated in
the country, and was mercilessly lampooned in _Punch_; and attention was
attracted to the fact that from that time forward the Duke of Wellington
always prefixed the initials "F.M." in his short, brusque third-person
letters. "H.R.H. F.M. Paterfamilias" was for some time one of the chief
of _Punch's_ stock jests. The Prince was pursued into his private
apartments, and shown as a _père de famille_ in not the most respectful
spirit. In one picture he is represented in his dressing-gown conferring
upon "P--pps the Fortunate" the Knighthood of the Shower Bath; in
others, the effect of Time upon his head and figure are dwelt upon with
real sardonic relish. The misapprehensions of the public were not
unnaturally reflected by _Punch_, and a cut was much applauded in which
the Prince was shown stopped by a policeman in Trafalgar Square when in
the act of removing a couple of pictures from the National Gallery.
_Punch_ pointedly inquires, "Taking them to Kensington Gore? Suppose you
leave 'em where they are, eh?"
More justifiable perhaps, but still somewhat harsh, was _Punch's_
protest (1854) against the Prince's supposed interference in State
politics. He is shown skating on the ice, warned off by Mr. Punch from a
section of it labelled "Foreign Affairs--Dangerous." And in the same
year he is attacked with extraordinary gusto by reason of the new hat he
had devised for the British army--or, at least, for the Guards. In 1843
the first "Albert shako" had appeared, and Leech, in a cartoon called
"Prince Albert's Studio," exhibited it as a pretended work of art in the
most ludicrous light. Again, in 1847 the Prince had invented a similar
headgear, popularly christened "the Albert Hat," which _Punch_ converted
to his uses and worked to death. "The New Albert Bonnet for the Guards"
ridicules the idea unmercifully, and "the British Grenadier as improved
by His Royal Highness Prince Albert, decidedly calculated to frighten
the Russians," was another grotesque perversion of a praiseworthy
attempt with which Mr. Punch was in his heart a good deal in sympathy.
For his artists were as diligent as the Prince in trying to improve the
uniform of the British soldier, contrasting with its wretched
inconvenience the serviceability and ease of the sailor's. The drawing
in which a private, half choked by his stock, held helplessly rigid by
his straps and buckles, and unable to hold his gun as his "head's coming
off!" illustrates the fact that _Punch's_ views and Prince Albert's had
much in common. We have the authority of Sir Theodore Martin, in his
biography (Vol. II., p. 299), that the Prince Consort took _Punch's_
humours in very good part, and made a large collection of the
caricatures of the day, in the belief that in them alone could the true
position of a public man be recognised. But it is said that soon after
this last crusade a hint was received from Windsor Castle to the effect
that a little less personality and a little more justice in respect to
the Prince would be appreciated, as much by the people as by the Court.
It is certain that after this time the attacks practically came to an
end. And when the Prince died, there were few truer mourners in the
land, and the widowed Queen had few sincerer sympathisers, than the
jester whose raillery had been so keen, and who felt too late a generous
remorse.
"It was too soon to die," wrote Shirley Brooks in a poem called, simply,
"Albert, December Fourteenth, 1861"--
"It was too soon to die.
Yet, might we count his years by triumphs won,
By wise, and bold, and Christian duties done,
It were no brief eventless history.
* * * * *
"Could there be closer tie
'Twixt us, who, sorrowing, own a nation's debt,
And Her, our own dear Lady, who as yet
Must meet her sudden woe with tearless eye:
"When with a kind relief
Those eyes rain tears, O might this thought employ!
Him whom she loved we loved. We shared her joy,
And will not be denied to share her grief."
_Punch_ always had a number of butts on hand--men whom he attacked for
their delinquencies, real or imaginary, or whom on account of
idiosyncrasies he thought to be fair game, just for the fun of it. One
of the first of these was Lord William Lennox, a nobleman of literary
pretensions, whose efforts, however, were said to be more pretentious
than literary. His novel of "The Tuft-Hunter" was quickly "spotted" by
the critics, and Hood was the first to declare that the book was little
else than a patchwork from his own "Tylney Hall," from "The Lion," and
from Scott's "Antiquary," though the "names and epithets" were changed.
"Such kind of borrowing as this," Milton has said, "if it be not
bettered by the borrower, among good authors is accounted plagiarè;" and
as plagiarism of the most unblushing character _Punch_ adjudged it. Hood
himself contributed his mite to the discussion in the paper in the form
of the following:--
"EPIGRAM
"_On the 'Tuft-Hunter,' by Lord William Lennox._
"A duke once declared--and most solemnly, too--That
whatever he liked with his own he would do;
But the son of a duke has gone further and shown
He will do what he likes when it isn't his own!"
And it was Hood who inspired Jerrold with the idea of the biting article
headed "Daring Robbery by a Noble Lord-_Punch's_ Police." In this
instance _Punch_ was genuinely indignant, and he proceeded to make Lord
William's life a burden to him with such announcements as: "Shortly will
be published, in two volumes, 8vo, a new work, entitled 'Future and
Never,' by Lord W. Lennox, author of Carlyle's 'Past and Present,' etc.
etc., and of Wordsworth's 'We are Six and One';" and again "Prize Comedy
by Lord W. Lennox: 'Academy for Scandal';" while a portion of _Punch's_
preface to his sixth volume (1844) was supposed to be written by Lord
William, and presented a most laughable compound of sayings and
quotations, with slight alteration, from well-known authors. But when
_Punch_ dropped him, the unhappy author was not left alone, for the
"Great Gun" and other journals picked him up, and played with what
remained of his literary reputation.
It was in his second number that _Punch_ began his persistent ridicule
of Jullien, the famous _chef d'orchestre_ who introduced the Promenade
Concerts to Drury Lane, with such prodigious success. The poem, from the
pen of W. H. Wills, began characteristically--"One--crash! Two--clash!
Three--dash! Four--smash!!" and, not wholly without malevolence,
described the popular conductor as a
"_ci-devant_ waiter
Of a _quarante-sous traiteur_ "--
thus laying the foundation for the charges of musical ignorance,
illiteracy, musical-"ghost"-employment, and other imposture, under which
he suffered in this country nearly all his life. Jullien indignantly
denied the hard impeachment, and declared that he began his musical life
as a fifer in the French navy, and had in that capacity been present on
a man-o'-war at the battle of Solferino in 1829. His assailant accepted
the statement as to his military achievement, adding the suggestion that
after working himself up to more than concert pitch, and "holding in his
hand one sharp, which he turned into several flats," Jullien withdrew
from the service on account of the discord of battle, particularly as
the shrieks of the wounded were horribly out of tune.
_Punch_ fell back on Jullien's well-oiled ringlets, his general _tenue_
and violent gesticulation, and, with better cause, on his "Row Polka,"
and on those wild and frenzied quadrilles in which the music in one part
was "accentuated with a salvo of artillery." But _Punch_, ignoring the
better part of Jullien's musical ability, made no allowance for the
curious quality of his mind, which was evidently ill-balanced, and
indeed was finally overthrown. Jullien's vanity, for example, was
sublime, rivalling that of the Knellers and Greuzes of earlier days; and
his biographer sets forth how, in the scheme he imagined for the
civilisation of the world by means of music, he had determined (though
essentially a "dance musician") to set to music the Lord's Prayer. It
could not fail, said Jullien, to be an unprecedented success, with two
of the greatest names in history on its title-page! The musician
ultimately died through over-work, the consequence of an honourable
attempt to meet his liabilities.
Sir Peter Laurie was another favourite quarry, who almost from the
beginning was singled out of the Corporation, of which he was really one
of the most efficient members, because he aimed at "putting down" by the
stern administration of justice what, perhaps, could only be dealt with
by sympathy. _Punch_ chose to interpret Sir Peter's views into regarding
poverty less as a misfortune than as _primâ-facie_ evidence of the poor
man's guilt or folly; but it was when the well-meaning alderman so far
"opened his mouth as to put his foot into it," by declaring, when trying
a case, "that it was his intention to put down suicide," that Jerrold's
pen stuck him on to _Punch's_ page, and heaped ridicule on him from
every point of view. Alderman Moon, the famous print-seller of
Threadneedle Street, was another butt--the more unjustly (though he
certainly did sometimes cut a ridiculous figure) as he rendered real
service to artists, and looked upon English art and its patronage in a
broad and patriotic way, even while he made his own fortune in doing so.
This, however, he did not succeed in retaining, and his acts and motives
were sneered at, and his "testimonial" fatally ridiculed.
Then Harrison Ainsworth, as much for his good-looks and his literary
vanity, as for his tendency to reprint his romances in such journals as
came under his editorship, was the object of constant banter. An epigram
put the case very neatly:--
Says Ainsworth to Colburn,[22]
"A plan in my pate is,
To give my romance, as
A supplement, _gratis_."
Says Colburn to Ainsworth,
"'Twill do very nicely,
For that will be charging
Its value precisely."
Harrison Ainsworth could not have his portrait painted, nor write a
novel of crime and sensation, without being regarded as a convenient peg
for pleasantry. Similarly did Tom Taylor fall foul of Bulwer Lytton (p.
91, Vol. IX.) by reason of the dedication of "Zanoni" to Gibson the
sculptor, in which it was said that the book was not for "the common
herd." The story of Lytton's castigation by Tennyson is duly related
where the Laureate's contributions to _Punch_ are spoken of. In Lytton's
case, at least, _Punch_ forgot to apply Swift's aphorism that a man has
just as much vanity as he has understanding.
Of the artists, Turner perhaps lent himself most to _Punch's_ satire.
Ruskin had not yet arisen to champion the mighty painter's
ill-appreciated art; and Turner's colour-dreams, in which "form" was
often to a great extent ignored, were not more tempting to the satirical
Philistine than those extraordinary quotations from his formless epic,
called "The Fallacies of Hope," extracts from which he loved to append
to his pictures' titles. Nothing could be better in the way of satire
than the manner in which _Punch_ turned upon the poor painter, and
"guy'd" his picture with a burlesque of his own poetic "style." It was
in the Royal Academy of 1845 that the artist exhibited his celebrated
"Venice--Returning from the Ball;" and this is how _Punch_ received
it:--
"Oh! what a scene!--Can this be Venice? No.
And yet methinks it is--because I see
Amid the lumps of yellow, red, and blue
Something which looks like a Venetian spire.
* * * * *
This in my picture I would fain convey;
I hope I do. Alas! _What_ FALLACY!"
Turner, unhappily, was acutely sensitive to these attacks; but _Punch_
cared little for that, and probably--to do him justice--knew still less.
It is, however, notable that--doubtless on account of that very
common-sense which has nearly always kept him right on great
questions--_Punch_ has usually in art been nearly as much a Philistine
as the public he represents. When Sir Edward Burne-Jones burst forth
into the artistic firmament, _Punch_ joined, if not the mockers, at
least the severer critics. "BURN JONES?" said he; "by all means do." Of
the exquisite "Mirror of Venus" and "The Beguiling of Merlin" he ignored
the poetry, and saw little but the quaintness, his criticism being the
more weighty for its being clever. Of the first-named picture he
observed:--
"Or crowding round one pool, from flowery shelves
A group of damsels bowed the knee
Over reflections solid as themselves
And like as peasen be."
While in the latter
"... mythic Uther's diddled _son_ was seen
Packed in a trunk with cramped limbs awry,
Spell-fettered by a Siren, limp and lean,
And at least twelve heads high."
No doubt, the grounds of _Punch's_ opposition were not only those which
are recognised as belonging to the humorist; they consisted not a little
in that healthy hatred of the affectation with which so much good art is
husked. In more recent times _Punch_ did not ignore the fine decorative
qualities of Mr. Aubrey Beardsley's art, though he plainly loathed the
morbid ugliness of much of its conception and detail.
Perhaps no one was more heartily attacked than Charles Kean--"Young
Kean," it was the fashion to call him--probably because between Jerrold
and the actor there had been a serious quarrel. As to this, which took
its rise in the pre-_Punch_ days, nothing need here be said; it is fully
dealt with in the wit's biography. In the words of the present Editor:
"Only tardily was something like justice done to Kean's influence on the
drama of our time, by _Punch_, who had been one of the first to sound
the note of warning about that 'stage-upholstery' which was the first
sign of the growth of realism in dramatic art." _Punch_ loved to
contrast the younger Kean with his more gifted father, and had no
patience with the raucous voice and bad enunciation of the son; but his
sketch of the actor as Sardanapalus (1853), "with a wine-cup of the
period," sets on record one of the most perfect archæological revivals
that had ever been seen on the English stage. But it was Kean's
"Mephistopheles" (1854) that afforded _Punch_ his chance, for the
actor's realisation was so wide of Goethe's creation that it was a
Frenchified demon, played as a comic character. _Punch_ admitted the
beauty of the production, but said that "as a piece of show and
mechanism (wires unseen) it will draw the eyes of the town, especially
the eyes with the least brains behind them." Kean's performance was
denounced as devoid of life and beauty, but generous praise was accorded
to his newly made-up nose, to which the best part of the criticism was
devoted. "It has the true demoniacal curve," he said; "we never saw a
better view of the devil's bridge." And so, throughout, _Punch_ dogged
Kean's progress. But as time went on, his criticism lost the taint of
personal feeling; and Kean was recognised at last as our leading
tragedian, though to the end he was never accepted as a great actor.
A pretty accurate estimate as to _Punch's_ pet "black beasts" and
popular butts at this time may be formed by the list drawn up in the
paper of those persons whom _Punch_ would exercise his right to
"challenge" if, in accordance with Mr. Serjeant Murphy's suggestion in
the House of Commons, _Punch_ were put upon his trial for conspiracy,
apropos of Cobden. From such a jury, we are told, there would be struck
off, in addition to those names already given, Mr. Grant (author of "The
Great Metropolis"), Baron Nathan the composer, Alderman Gibbs, D. W.
Osbaldiston (of the Surrey Theatre), Colonel Sibthorpe, and Moses the
tailor.
In dealing with the work of Jerrold, I draw attention to the merciless
onslaught on Samuel Carter Hall, editor of the "Art Journal" and founder
of the "Art Union," as it was at first called. Hall was Pecksniff; the
"Art Union" was "The Pecksniffery;" and _Punch_ courted the libel action
which Hall threatened but failed to bring. That "the literary Pecksniff"
took this course could not but create a bad impression at the time, and
Hall has therefore been put down as one of the butts whom _Punch_ had
justly assailed. Of course his sententious catch-phrase of appealing to
"hand, head, and heart" was always made the most of, and _Punch_
delighted in paraphrasing it as "gloves, hat, and waistcoat."
But the two non-political persons whom _Punch_ most persistently and
vigorously attacked were Mr. James Silk Buckingham and Mr. Alfred Bunn;
and these two campaigns must, perhaps, be counted the most elaborate of
their kind which _Punch_ has undertaken in his career--though in neither
had he very much to be proud of when all was said and done. Mr. J. S.
Buckingham, sometime Member of Parliament, was a gentleman
philanthropically inclined and of literary instincts, a man who had
travelled greatly, and who in many of the schemes he had
undertaken--including the founding of the "Athenæum" in 1828--had
usually had the support of a number of the most reputable persons in the
country. His latest idea was the establishing of the British and Foreign
Institute--a sort of counterpart in intention of the present Colonial
Institute; but as all of Mr. Buckingham's schemes had not succeeded, and
as he retained chambers in the club-house of what _Punch_ insisted upon
calling the "British and Foreign [or 'Outlandish'] Destitute," the
journal was convinced that something more than a _primâ-facie_ case had
been made out against the promoter, who, being assumed to live upon the
members' subscriptions, was harried in the paper from its first volume,
chiefly at first by the slashing pen of Jerrold, and--in small
paragraphs--by the more delicate rapier of Horace Mayhew. These charges
of mal-administration and other offensive imputations against a
semi-public man whose chief faults seem to have been an over-sanguine
temperament and a slight disposition towards self-advertisement,
attracted wide notice, and _Punch_ devoted in all considerable space to
the prosecution of this mistaken campaign. Unfortunately for Buckingham,
a member of the Institute, a Mr. George Jones--who had published a good
deal of dramatic nonsense under the title of "Tecumseh"--came to his
support with a ridiculous, inflated letter, which _Punch_ promptly
printed with the signature engraved in facsimile. Thereupon Jones,
finding the doubtful honour of publicity unexpectedly thrust upon him,
denounced the letter as a forgery; so _Punch_, had it lithographed and
circulated among the members, "just to show how good the forgery was."
Jones forthwith began an action for libel, which _Punch_ defended. The
genuineness of the document, however, was established, and Jones
withdrew from the action, paying all costs.
The sins of Jones were naturally added to Buckingham's account, and the
latter decided--as Leech once effectively threatened to do--to "draw"
and defend himself. He published a pamphlet entitled "The Slanders of
_Punch_" felicitously quoting as his motto from Proverbs xxvi. 18, "As a
mad man who casteth firebrands, arrows, and death, so is the man that
deceiveth his neighbour, and saith, Am not I in sport?"--he appealed for
justice to the public, and especially to "the 200,000 readers of
_Punch_" denouncing the persecution, and making known the fact that
Jerrold had originally applied for membership of his Institute, but had
failed to take up his election, whereupon his name was erased from the
books. Ten thousand handbills were circulated, and six thousand copies
of the threepenny pamphlet, in various editions, were sold. _Punch's_
answer was a whole page of savage, biting satire from Jerrold (p. 241,
Vol. IX.), which, however, was too bombastic and "ultrafluvial" to be
wholly effective. Thackeray's page article on "John Jones's Remonstrance
about the Buckingham Business" (p. 261) was far more to the
point--amusing, politic, and shrewd--and drew the quarrel within its
proper limits, by imparting to it a more jocular tone. Addressing the
paper, he says, "At page 241 you are absolutely serious. That page of
_Punch_ is a take-in. _Punch_ ought never to be virtuously indignant or
absolutely serious;" and with these words, re-affirming the maxim which
_Punch_ had forgotten in his heat, he restored peace, patched up the
paper's reputation for good-humour, and with a skilful word covered its
retreat.
But _Punch_ found his Waterloo, as it was considered at the time, at the
hands of Alfred Bunn. Bunn was the theatrical and operatic manager and
man of letters--or, rather, as the letters were so insignificant, the
"man of _notes_." As early as 1816 he had produced a volume of verse.
Such verse!--sentimental, washy, and "woolly" to a degree. Three years
later he put his name to 'Tancred: a Tale,' by the author of 'Conrad: a
Tragedy,' lately performed at the Theatre Royal, Birmingham--of which
he was manager for a spell before he came to London--and from time to
time he gave forth other works, such as "The Stage, both Before and
Behind the Curtain," three volumes of rather shrewd "Observations taken
on the Spot" (1840), and "Old England and New England" (1853). He
delivered lectures, too, at the St. James's Theatre, three times a week,
on the History of the Stage, and the Genius and Career of
Shakespeare--lectures which he also delivered in America. His verses,
though vapid balderdash for the most part, were well adapted to music,
and his ballads "When other Lips and other Hearts," "The Light of other
Days," "In Happy Moments Day by Day" (sung in Fitzball's "Maritana"),
enjoyed enormous popularity.
Still, the whole attitude, the whole bearing of the man--his showy,
almost comic, appearance and his grandiloquence of expression--as well
as the tremendous character of the wording of his theatrical bills,
afforded points of attack from the moment that he caught the public eye,
that no caricaturist or humorist could resist. As early as 1832 Jerrold
was lampooning him in his "Punch in London." In the following year
Thackeray held him up to ridicule in his "National Standard," that was
fated to collapse a few months later, and honoured him with immortality
in "Flore and Zephyr;"[23] and soon after, Gilbert à Beckett satirised
him in "Figaro in London." In 1833 "Alfred the Little; or, Management! A
Play as rejected at Drury Lane, by a Star-gazer," was another satire of
distinct severity.
It is not surprising, therefore, that as soon as _Punch_ was started the
wits combined to continue the game which they had already, separately
enjoyed, and which the public presumably found amusing. The other papers
joined in _Punch's_ cry, the "Great Gun" showing pre-eminent zeal in its
stalking of "Signor Bombastes Bunnerini." From the moment of _Punch's_
birth onwards, Bunn was one of his most ludicrous and fairest butts.
When he wrote verse, he was "The Poet Bunn;" when he was annoyed at
that, or anything else, he was "Hot Cross Bunn." His deposition from the
management of Drury Lane and his appointment to the Vauxhall Gardens
were coincident with _Punch's_ appearance, and the publication of his
"Vauxhall Papers," illustrated by Alfred Crowquill, again drew attention
to himself. No sooner was the fierce controversy begun as to the
propriety of including a statue of Cromwell among the Sovereigns of
England in the new Palace of Westminster, a matter decided fifty years
later, than _Punch_ gravely mooted the question--"Shall Poet Bunn have a
Statue?" Then when his reign at Drury Lane was resumed, and opera was
his grand enterprise, Bunn became _Punch's_ "Parvus Apollo," while
Scribe's libretto to Donizetti's music was to be "undone into English"
by the Poet himself; and the persecuted manager was throughout the
subject of some of the happiest and most comic efforts of Leech's
pencil.
At last, after supporting a six years' persistent cannonade, Bunn
determined to strike a blow for liberty. His plan was to issue a
reply--a swift and sudden attack, as personal and offensive as he could
make it--in the form of _Punch's_ own self, enough like it in appearance
to amuse the public, if not actually to deceive it. He secured the help
of Mr. George Augustus Sala, then a young artist whose pencil was
enlisted in the service of "The Man in the Moon," and who had as yet
little idea of the journalistic eminence to which he was to rise. He had
previously submitted sketches to Mark Lemon for use in _Punch_, which
had been summarily and, as he tells me, "unctuously declined," and in
his share of the work he doubtless tasted some of the sweets of revenge,
and richly earned the epithet which Lemon thereupon applied to him of
"graceless young whelp."
If the front page of this production be compared with Doyle's first
_Punch_ cover on p. 47, the extent of the imitation will be appreciated.
The size was the same, and the _Punch_ lettering practically identical;
but otherwise the resemblance was of a general character. If the design
is examined, it will be seen that the groups are chiefly composed of
_Punch's_ victims and his Staff. At the top the "Man in the Moon"
presides; below, the "Great Gun" is firing away at the dejected
hunchback in the pillory. Toby is hanged on his master's own gallows;
and the puppets are strewn about. Thackeray leans for support against
Punch's broken big drum; Tom Taylor is beside him--Horace ("Ponny")
Mayhew lies helpless in his box; while next to him Gilbert à Beckett is
prone upon his face, leaving his barrister's wig upon the "block-head."
Jerrold, as a wasp, is gazing ruefully at the bâton which has dropped
from Punch's feeble hands; and Mark Lemon, dressed as a pot-boy, is
straining himself in the foreground to reach his pewter-pot. Around
float many of _Punch's_ butts, political and social. Wellington on the
left and Brougham on the right play cup-and-ball with him. Louis
Philippe has him on a toasting-fork, and Lord John Russell hangs him on
a gallows-tree. Palmerston, Prince de Joinville, Jullien, Sibthorpe,
Moses the tailor, Buckingham, and many more besides, are to be
recognised. It was inscribed "No. 1,--(to be continued if necessary)"--a
contingency, however, that did not arise.
It is usually considered that Bunn engaged a clever writer to write his
text for him; but it is quite likely that he wrote the whole work
himself, simply submitting it to the "editing" of some more experienced
journalist, probably Albert Smith. Much of the manner is his own, and,
as Mr. Joseph Knight agrees,[24] it "has many marks of Bunn's style, and
is in part incontestably his."
His "Word" is directed at _Punch's_ "three Puppets--Wronghead (Mr.
Douglas Jerrold), Sleekhead (Mr. Gilbert à Beckett), and Thickhead (Mr.
Mark Lemon)--formidable names, Punch! and, as being three to one,
formidable odds!" He refers to his friends having warned him not to
rebel against Punch's attacks, as he is
a public character!! Pray, Punch, are not these, your puppets,
public characters? Have they not acted in public, laboured for the
public, catered for the public? Has not Douglas Jerrold been hissed
off the stage by the public? Have not à Beckett's writings! been
acted, and damned, in public? and as to Mark Lemon, there can be no
doubt of _his_ being a public character, for he some time since
kept a _public_-house!!! All ceremony therefore is at an end
between us.... There may be other misdemeanours of which they have
from time to time thought me guilty; but the grand one of all is,
that I have taken the liberty of attempting to write poetry, and
have produced on the stage my own works in preference to theirs....
Did you ever see them act, Punch? Did you ever see Douglas Jerrold
in his own piece, entitled "The Painter of Ghent"? If not, I can
only say you are a devilish lucky fellow! Did you ever see him and
Mark Lemon act at Miss Kelly's theatre? and if so, did you ever see
such an awful exhibition?... and if, as _they_ say, they _did_
"hold the mirror up to Nature," _I_ say it was only to _cast
reflections_ upon her!! Did you read, Punch, the criticisms written
_by_ themselves _upon_ themselves in the next day's papers? If you
did not, you have a treat to come.
[Illustration: THE WRAPPER OF "A WORD WITH PUNCH." (_Designed by George
Augustus Sala._)]
And so forth. Then, presenting the head of Jerrold on the body of an
unusually wriggling serpent, which he gives forth as being from
"portraits in possession of the family," he goes on to "say something"
of the man of savage sarcasm and "bilious bitings:"--
Now, with all his failings, let me record my opinion that it is to
Jerrold's pen you are indebted, Punch, for the fame you once
enjoyed; for, beyond any doubt, he is a fellow of infinite ability.
I have known him some years, and the last time but one I ever _saw_
him was in 1842, when, meeting me in St. James's Street, he thanked
me for a handsome critique he believed me to have written on his
comedy of "Bubbles of the Day," and on that occasion he said a
better thing, Punch, than he has written in your pages. I said to
him, "What, you are picking up character, I suppose?"--to which he
replied, "There's plenty of it lost, in this neighbourhood." The
last time I ever _heard_ from him was during the first visit of
Duprez to Drury Lane Theatre, when I received the following note
from him:--
Wednesday.
"MY DEAR SIR,
Will you enable me to hear your French nightingale--_do pray_,
Yours very truly,
D. JERROLD."
--which is the vilest pun ever perpetrated at the expense of that
eminent singer.... Unlike the other two of his party, he is a man
of undoubted genius; but all who admit this, at the same time
regret the frequent misdirection of his mind. He is one of the most
ill-conditioned, spiteful, vindictive, and venomous writers in
existence, and whatever honey _was_ in his composition, has long
since turned to gall.... Can it be possible [he adds, after digging
up and quoting some of Jerrold's feeblest verse] that it never
occurs to a wholesale dealer in slander and ridicule that he is
liable to be assailed by the very weapons he useth against others?
Then comes the portrait of Gilbert Abbott à Beckett, in wig and gown,
but with devil's hoofs and tail. On him the attack is savage in the
extreme, the details of his _early_ lack of financial success being
published, and the whole dismissed with the comprehensive remark: "a
very prolific person, this friend of yours, Punch!--editor of thirteen
periodicals, and lessee of a theatre into the bargain, and all total
failures!" After heavy-handed chaff he proceeds to abuse Mark Lemon, up
and down, in similar terms; and with a view to show that others write
verse as bad as his, reprints the weakest lines in his "Fridolin" and
"The Rhine-boat." In the course of his very effective attack Bunn
proceeds:--
In speaking of the Castle of Heidelberg, which _he_ says is on the
Rhine, although everyone else says it is on the Neckar, he thus
apostrophises it:--
"'Tis here the north wind loves to hold
His dreary revels, loud and cold,
The nettle's bloom's his daily fare,
The TOAD _the guest most welcome there_!!"
Whether the last line _gives the reason why Thickhead visited
Heidelberg does not appear_.
He then dots epigrams and so forth--all insults of various degrees of
offensiveness--about the remaining pages, virtually suggesting, in
Sheridan's words, that while _Punch's_ circulation has gone down
hopelessly, "everything about him is a jest except his witticisms." The
advertisements, too, are of a similarly satirical character, one of them
showing, as an illustration of a "patent blacking," Mark Lemon (as
pot-boy) looking at his own likeness in the polish of a Wellington boot
which reflects a rearing donkey. The last cut represents a medicine
bottle with a label inscribed "This dose to be repeated, should the
patients require it," and the "Notice to Correspondents" declares that
ample material is left for future use. Such further publication,
however, was never called for. _Punch_ attempted no reply--inexplicably,
one would think, for there must have been something left to say of Hot
Cross Bunn. _Punch's_ rivals were not slow to twit him on his defeat,
especially the "Puppet Show" and "The Man in the Moon," the latter of
which, in a comic report of the proceedings at the "Licensing Committee
for Poets," remarked, "Mr. Alfred Bunn was bitterly opposed on personal
grounds by a person named Punch; but Mr. Bunn having intimated his wish
to have a Word with Punch, the latter skulked out of court, and _was not
heard of afterwards_."
"A Word with Punch"--which the _Punch_ men are said to have bought up as
far as possible--had a considerable sale, and an "édition de luxe" was
also issued, coloured. The engravings in it were made by Landells, a
modest piece of vengeance which must, however, have been gratifying, so
far as it went. It may be added that J. R. Adam, "the Cremorne Poet,"
took up the cudgels unasked in _Punch's_ behalf in a reply entitled "A
Word with Bunn;" but this little octavo is as insignificant as its
author, and attracted little notice.
Once again, in the early days of "Fun," _Punch_ came very near to being
startled with another such infernal machine. Mr. Clement Scott tells
me:--"We were offended with _Punch_ for some reason--it was in the Tom
Taylor days--and we meditated, planned out, and nearly executed a second
edition of 'A Word with Punch.' Tom Hood was furious. Sala was in our
conspiracy. In fact, all the 'young lions' of 'Fun' were 'crazy mad.' We
thought we could annihilate poor old _Punch_ with one blow. But we never
did it--because, I think, although we were plucky, we were impecunious!
We were very proud, but, alas! our pockets were empty; so the whole
company--Hood, Sala, Jeff Prowse, Harry Leigh, Brunton, Paul Gray, W. S.
Gilbert, W. B. Rands, Tom Robertson, Clement Scott and Co., had to knock
under."
From Bunn's time may be dated the better taste and greater chivalry that
have since distinguished _Punch_, even in his most rampant moods. He has
always had his butts--from the soft-hearted and, at the time,
unpardonably hirsute Colonel Sibthorpe, to Sir R. Temple and Mr.
McNeill, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Roebuck, Edwin James, ex-Q.C. (who was
disbarred for corruption and set up in New York, joining, as _Punch_ put
it, the "bar sinister"), Madame Rachel (the "beautiful for ever"
enameller, who had not yet been convicted), Colonel North, Sir Francis
Baring, Cox of Finsbury, Wiscount Williams of Lambeth, the Duke of
Buccleuch, Lord Malmsbury, and a host of others. But his attacks rarely
overstepped due limits; nor did _Punch_ ever find another aspiring Bunn
among them. Amongst the inanimate objects which at various times _Punch_
made his mark were Trafalgar Square and its Fountains (or the "Squirts,"
as they were scornfully called), the National Gallery, Mud-Salad Market,
Leicester Square, the Wellington Statue on the Wellington Arch, the
Great Exhibition, John Bell's Guards' Memorial in Waterloo Place, and
the British Museum Catalogue--all of which, so far as they represented
Londoners' grievances, have ere now been reformed.
FOOTNOTES:
[18] _Mangez bien_, Jenkinsonian French for "fare well."
[19] Jenkinsonian French for "thread-bare subject."
[20] On the occasion of _Punch's_ Jubilee, July, 1891, the "Times"
remarked; 'May we be excused for noting the fact that he [Punch] has
generally, in regard to public affairs, taken his cue from the "Times"?'
[21] "Fortnightly Review," December, 1886.
[22] His publisher.
[23] Edmund Yates believed that Bunn was Thackeray's model also for Mr.
Dolphin, the manager, in "Pendennis."
[24] "Dictionary of National Biography."