The History of "Punch" Part 16

But _Punch_, it must be admitted, has often departed from the solemn truth, both unintentionally and of malice aforethought. It was his common practice to put a straw into Lord Palmerston's mouth. Palmerston, of course, never did chew straws; but one was adopted as a symbol to show his cool and sportive nature. Many a time has that straw formed the topic of serious discussion by serious writers. Some have pretended that it was designed to typify an expression used by one of his admiring followers in the House--a tribute to his "stable character;" others have said that it became his attribute from the time that he described himself as "playing the part of judicious Bottle-Holder to the pugnacious Powers of Europe;" and Mark Lemon declared that it was simply used as a sort of trade-mark whereby he might be known again, just as Mr. Harry Furniss invented Mr. Gladstone's collars, Lord Randolph Churchill's diminutiveness, and exaggerated those complacent smiles and oily rippling chins of Sir William Harcourt, continuing them long after the time when Sir William could boast the local portliness no more.

However, it is certain that the sprig of straw, which really referred only to his pure devotion to the Turf, from 1815 onwards, was first used in 1851, just after the whimsical "Judicious Bottle-Holder" declaration, and, as a matter of fact, added not a little to Palmerston's popularity, as not only representing the Turf, but a Sam Weller-like calmness, alertness, and good-humour.

Similarly both Leech and Tenniel were in the habit of giving Bright an eye-gla.s.s. "Some of us remember seeing him wear a coat with a stand-up collar in the House of Commons," said a writer in the "Daily Telegraph,"

"and a broad-brimmed hat; but 'why,' he used to ask with a merry face, 'did _Punch_ always put an eye-gla.s.s in _my_ eye? I never wore a single eye-gla.s.s!'" That was just the point; for no doubt the simple reason was that the addition of a monocle was supposed to lend a sort of rakish appearance to the solemn Quaker, and belonged to the same genus of perverse jocularity as that which suggested three hats as the humorous covering for young Disraeli's head. Mr. W. H. Smith in like manner genially protested at a complimentary dinner in 1877 against the liberties taken with his person. "As to _Punch_," he said, "whose remarks have been mentioned, I beg leave to say that I do not go to sea in uniform, or exhibit those very queer expressions of face depicted by _Punch's_ artists."

There are some men whose physiognomies defy the deftest pencils. Such a one was Cobden, whose views _Punch_ represented far more faithfully and sympathetically than his face. At the Cobden dinner of 1884 Lord Carlingford drew fresh attention to the point: "Cobden's was, for some reason which I never heard explained, a most difficult face to sketch, and _Punch_ was in despair at the impossibility of producing a caricature that could be recognised without explanatory text. Many of the artists tried Cobden, and were floored over him. Leech and Tenniel both confessed that they could not hit the familiar expression. Somehow, they never did hit it, though photography came by-and-by to their aid."

The statement is perfectly true, but the reason is not hard to find: simply that a shaven face, without well-marked features or strong lines of character, and, above all, without angularities, gives the artist extremely little to "take hold of." For that reason such faces as those of Lord Rosebery, Mr. Asquith, and Mr. John Morley (of the latter of whom Mr. Furniss used to say the true characteristic expression is only to be found in his red cravat) are as often failures as successes, in even the skilfullest hands. It is the fault of neither the artist nor the person misrepresented; according to Mr. Lucy--it is "the act of G.o.d."

Before the days of photography the work of the caricaturist was harder than it is now. Draughtsmen had to be familiar with the faces of the leading men of the day--even as Leech was, by "getting them" into their sketch-books by hook or by crook, or else they would accept the portrait already published by a brother-artist. Even to-day it sometimes occurs that a man of importance has not been photographed. In that case he must be sketched or remembered, or his portrait "faked up" on the block until it bears some resemblance to the person required. But, pa.s.sing from mere portraiture to the realisation of ideas, the artist feels his liberty, and gives his genius full rein. Thus it is that _Punch_ has always been happy and successful in his "types." It is thoroughly in the spirit of caricature that types should be established and adhered to in order to express, in symbolic form, nations and even ideas. Not only is it poetical, it is convenient; and has perforce been adopted in every country where political caricature is employed, though with standards and notions very different from our own. In Italy, for example, and in a minor degree in Germany, John Bull, as the symbol of Great Britain, is usually represented by a travesty of _Punch's_, with a brutal head and bandy legs, and the whole figure bent in body to suggest a bull, horns sometimes protruding beside the hat; while Russia is courteously represented as a frantic Cossack of terrific mien, brandishing a knout with violent and savage intent. We may claim that our types, as invented by _Punch_, are of immeasurable superiority, whether of conception or of realisation. Our John Bull--a lineal descendant probably of Gillray's favourite representation of George the Third as "Farmer Gearge"--is a fine n.o.ble fellow enough as drawn by Leech and developed by Tenniel; indeed, in the drawings of the latter may often be seen the idealised face of Mark Lemon, his jovial Editor.

This view of the type of England has attracted the attention of Ruskin.

"Is it not surely," he asks, "some overruling power in the nature of things, quite other than the desire of his readers, which compels Mr.

Punch, when the squire, the colonel, and the admiral are to be at once expressed, together with all that they legislate or fight for, in the symbolic figure of the nation, to present the incarnate Mr. Bull always as a farmer--never as a manufacturer or shopkeeper--and to conceive and exhibit him rather as paymaster for the faults of his neighbours than as watching for opportunity of gain out of their follies?" And again, "... considering _Punch_ as the expression of the popular voice, which he virtually is, and even somewhat obsequiously, is it not wonderful that he has never a word to say for the British manufacturer, and that the true citizen of his own city is represented by him only under the types either of Sir Pompey Bedell or of the more tranquil magnate and potentate, the bulwark of British const.i.tutional principles and initiator of British private enterprise, Mr. John Smith?"

[Ill.u.s.tration: MR. GLADSTONE IN "PUNCH."

_(By J. Leech, J. Tenniel, L. Sambourne, and H. Furniss. Re-drawn by Harry Furniss.)_]

It is true that _Punch_ has imposed upon a nation a character which, as depicted, is unknown in the land, and placed him in a line of business notoriously dissimilar from that in which he really engages; and the sum-total of it all is greatly to the credit of Mr. Punch's influence.

He has, in fact, "educated" a nation. For to this day, no sooner does each succeeding Wednesday spread the new issue over the country than a ma.s.s of newspapers, both in England and in the colonies, immediately describe and discuss "This week's cartoon" for the edification of their readers. And so we have come to accept these types until they have almost grown into concrete ideas--conventions which have been given to us chiefly by Sir John Tenniel--Britannia and Father Time, the New Year and the Old, Cousin Jonathan (or Uncle Sam) and Columbia, Death and Crime, Starvation and Disease, Peace and War, Justice and Anarchy, the British Lion (might not the symbol nowadays be more appropriately the British Racehorse?), the Bengal Tiger, the Russian Bear, the Eagle, and all the rest. And could they well be bettered?

FOOTNOTES:

[17] it was on Cardinal Wiseman's door, not upon a wall.

CHAPTER IX.

_PUNCH_ ON THE WAR-PATH: ATTACK.

_Punch_ lays about Him--a.s.saults the "Morning Post"--The Fact.i.tious "Jenkins"--Thackeray's Farewell--Mrs. Gamp (the "Morning Herald") and Mrs. Harris (the "Standard")--_Lese Majeste!_--The "Standard"

Fulminates a Leader--The Retort--His Loyalty--Banters the Prince Consort--Tribute on the Prince's Death--_Punch's_ b.u.t.ts: 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 Dest.i.tute"--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 b.u.t.ts; 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 _baton_ 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. .h.i.therto been believed, but of Douglas Jerrold, under the t.i.tle of "The 'Post' at the Opera." The tone of that newspaper was irresistible to the democrats of _Punch_; and Thackeray, Leech, and a 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 ill.u.s.trations 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]

Desormais avec toi nous ferons rien, Vous etes tout use--chose qui montre la corde,[19]

Nos lecteurs etaient mal de toi d'abord; Allez-vous-en--votre baton coupez vite, En _Ponch_ jamais votre nom--desormais 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 a.s.sume 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 ent.i.tled "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 a.s.sailant 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 sn.o.bbery 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_ antic.i.p.ate. 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.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 a Beckett and Percival Leigh, with slight a.s.sistance 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 amus.e.m.e.nts 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 sn.o.bbish 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 G.o.dfather, 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 a 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! G.o.d 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 _pere 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 gus...o...b.. 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!" ill.u.s.trates 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: