TO A MODERN PYRRHA. O
H, Pyrrha, say what Youth, so wan and worn,
Woos thee with many a
whisper heard at e’en? For whom do you so curi
ously adorn—
A subtle symphony in sad sage-green?
How oft will he your way
wardness deplore,
And miss the smiles that
once were all for him; When this æsthetic mania
is o’er,
And you’re perchance engrossed in some new whim!
But as for me, my first
love is the last;
New fancies and new
faces charm no more; And, even were my youth
ful days not past,
You’re not the sort of
girl I should adore. For whom do you, so very tightly laced,
With well-furred shoulders promenade the street?
Your hat a Gainsborough Beauty might have graced, A Chinese lady envied those small feet.
What youth admires that figure so pinched in?
Who loves the fashions as they are just now? What wonder that you grow so pale and thin,
With interesting furrows on your brow.
When to your natural grace will you give play?
Tis better thus than crinoline and hoop.
“She stoops to conquer. ” Pretty Pyrrha, say Now, if you want to conquer, can you stoop?
THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS.
We have every reason to believe that the following are truthful summaries of the Election Reports which will be presented to Parliament by the Commissions.
Immaculatesfield.
It is impossible for us conscientiously to report that we are satisfied with the manner in which the Election here was conducted...
The facts about the “mysterious stranger” are very suspicious. If he was not a bribing agent, why did he perambulate the chief tho
roughfares with a bag of gold at his side, requesting the electors to vote for Captain Cofferfull, the “Blue” Candidate? Why, if they promised to vote for Captain Coffeefull, did he employ them as messenger at a salary varying from £1 to £10 an hour? These facts, wo repeat, appear suspicious. It is, perhaps, open to remark that this “mysterious stranger” has not appeared to give evidence before us, and both sides profess complete ignorance of who he is, where he is; or, in fact, whether he iы at all. Perhaps he’s indisposed, and has not heard of this inquiry as yet... As to Tom
Snooks, we are not satisfied that he actually received more than £20 for his vote, though the manner in which he gave his evidence was most satisfactory. We are rather inclined to believe that the valu
able gold watch which Tom Snooks presented to his sweetheart the day after the polling, was purchased out of some money which he received as an equivalent for his vote — or, as he facetiously expresses it, for “ his loss of time. ” It is only fair to add that Tom Snooks himself swears that this is not the case, but that the watch was bought with money saved out of his earnings during the last two years. As Tom Snooks has only been in employment (as a rag-andbone-picker) for one year, and his weekly wage is about five shillings, his story appears to us to hear on it traces of inaccuracy. Still, we are unwilling to believe that this excellent fellow has been committing wilful and corrupt perjury... However, there can hardly be
any doubt that some money was spent in illegal practices in this borough, inasmuch as we find that the number of the electors is 150 all told, and that £3000 was contributed by each Candidate for Election expenses, while another £3000 was contributed by political friends. Both Candidates assure us they had no notion that the
money would or could possibly be spent in bribery or treating. They appear nice gentlemanly fellows, hut it is odd that they had no sus
picions as to the use that was being made of their cheque-books. Mr. Timothy Higgins acknowledged that he had received £10 for running messages, another £10 to see that the other messengers ran messages, besides £20 to see that no, bribing went on, and an addi
tional douceur of £30 to be sure that there was no treating. This looks to us like corruption, though we don’t feel quite sure about it. Other cases of a similar nature occurred, so we can only end by recommending this ancient and most respectable borough to the mercy of your honourable House.
Ham Sandwich and Veal.
This dirty and decayed little town, or two towns, appears, to our unanimous judgment, to be the most corrupt borough in the United Kingdom. At least, we cannot possibly imagine any borough more corrupt. There are upon the Register 500 burgesses, and of these we have to report that 495 were either directly or indirectly bribed.
Of the remaining five, one is a hopeless idiot, or has the reputation of being so. Possibly this reputation may arise from the fact,
credibly reported to us as true, that on the occasion of a former election this deluded individual refused £5 and a glass of beer for his vote, on so-called “ conscientious” grounds. If so, we are perfectly certain that there is no other man, woman, or child in Ham Sandwich and Veal that feels any such ridiculous scruples...
The four other persons who were not proved to have been bribed, can be easily accounted for. One refused to receive £10 for his vote, considering the sum offered much too small, and so didn’t vote at all. Another had every intention of taking £5 from each side, but unfor
tunately couldn’t find the place of distribution, and had to go with
out. The two others left the town hurriedly on the day that the Commission arrived at it, and are not expected to return until the Commission has finished its labours. This satisfactorily accounts for the whole population, so we can finish off this report here; and jolly glad we are to be done with it. We cannot, however, close without recording a most excellent joke made by one of our number, which we feel sure will amuse your honourable House. On Mr. Smithkin’s remarking that “he had been promised £10 to vote blue, but had
not yet received it, ” Mr. (rising) Jeunior replied, “ Then I suppose you are all in the blues? ” This appears to us a witticism so con
summate in itself, and so admirably suited to the character of the occasion and. the dignity of the inquiry, that we should fail in our duty if we omitted to record it. And your Commissioners will ever pray, &c.
Oxborough.
This place is a Cathedral town. Therefore we need hardly say it is corrupt. Cathedral towns always are corrupt. There is some
thing in a Gothic pillar, or a Norman arch, which irresistibly leads to depravity; and an Early English spire seems to be a direct incentive to vice (not the “Vice, ” of course).
It is very pleasing among the dark aspects of electoral affairs, to notice one feature of these elections, which seems to point to better times coming. As everybody knows, there is an ancient University here; and, of course, the University has nothing whatever to do
with the City Election. Yet, notwithstanding this, there are great and good men among the professors and lecturers, who go out of their way to discharge their duty to their country, actually con
tributing as much as £50 a head to the expenses (of course the necessary expenses) of the Election; and when that is not sufficient, running up to town, and getting as much as £ 3000 from the Head Centre of their respective parties to expend in — well, necessary expenses — as we said before. This patriotic devotion to their duty as citizens cannot be too highly commended.
Various sad cases of bribery have come before us, also of treating; but the gloom of our proceedings has been uniformly enlightened by comic incidents. Thus, Mr. Jeremy Sparks, who confessed to having received £15 for purposes of treating, expended £3 in treating others, and £12 in treating himself. When asked if he considered such treatment of the funds honest, he replied, “Oh, yes,
quite, ” which, we need hardly say, convulsed the Court and the audience with laughter, as was only natural.
The “lay clerk of St. John’s College” (we are not quite sure what
a “ lay clerk ” is, hut fancy it’s some inferior kind of election agent) who gave evidence as to his having paid £10 to one man because “ he was handy with his fists, ” appears to us to have somewhat exceeded his duties as a “ lay clerk. ” Another of the agents, who must be a wag in his way, described himself as “ Chichele Professor of Modern History, ” a harmless pleasantry which must have rather tickled that venerable University official when he heard of it.
We really can’t find anything more that’s likely to interest your honourable House, and we beg to recommend either that the place be disfranchised — which seems rather severe — or that the Cathedral, as the great centre of corruption, he immediately destroyed — which appears to us a more statesmanlike plan. It’s not much of a cathe
dral, and wouldn’t he missed, except by the Dean and the aged woman who sweeps it out once a week.
H, Pyrrha, say what Youth, so wan and worn,
Woos thee with many a
whisper heard at e’en? For whom do you so curi
ously adorn—
A subtle symphony in sad sage-green?
How oft will he your way
wardness deplore,
And miss the smiles that
once were all for him; When this æsthetic mania
is o’er,
And you’re perchance engrossed in some new whim!
But as for me, my first
love is the last;
New fancies and new
faces charm no more; And, even were my youth
ful days not past,
You’re not the sort of
girl I should adore. For whom do you, so very tightly laced,
With well-furred shoulders promenade the street?
Your hat a Gainsborough Beauty might have graced, A Chinese lady envied those small feet.
What youth admires that figure so pinched in?
Who loves the fashions as they are just now? What wonder that you grow so pale and thin,
With interesting furrows on your brow.
When to your natural grace will you give play?
Tis better thus than crinoline and hoop.
“She stoops to conquer. ” Pretty Pyrrha, say Now, if you want to conquer, can you stoop?
THE ELECTION COMMISSIONS.
We have every reason to believe that the following are truthful summaries of the Election Reports which will be presented to Parliament by the Commissions.
Immaculatesfield.
It is impossible for us conscientiously to report that we are satisfied with the manner in which the Election here was conducted...
The facts about the “mysterious stranger” are very suspicious. If he was not a bribing agent, why did he perambulate the chief tho
roughfares with a bag of gold at his side, requesting the electors to vote for Captain Cofferfull, the “Blue” Candidate? Why, if they promised to vote for Captain Coffeefull, did he employ them as messenger at a salary varying from £1 to £10 an hour? These facts, wo repeat, appear suspicious. It is, perhaps, open to remark that this “mysterious stranger” has not appeared to give evidence before us, and both sides profess complete ignorance of who he is, where he is; or, in fact, whether he iы at all. Perhaps he’s indisposed, and has not heard of this inquiry as yet... As to Tom
Snooks, we are not satisfied that he actually received more than £20 for his vote, though the manner in which he gave his evidence was most satisfactory. We are rather inclined to believe that the valu
able gold watch which Tom Snooks presented to his sweetheart the day after the polling, was purchased out of some money which he received as an equivalent for his vote — or, as he facetiously expresses it, for “ his loss of time. ” It is only fair to add that Tom Snooks himself swears that this is not the case, but that the watch was bought with money saved out of his earnings during the last two years. As Tom Snooks has only been in employment (as a rag-andbone-picker) for one year, and his weekly wage is about five shillings, his story appears to us to hear on it traces of inaccuracy. Still, we are unwilling to believe that this excellent fellow has been committing wilful and corrupt perjury... However, there can hardly be
any doubt that some money was spent in illegal practices in this borough, inasmuch as we find that the number of the electors is 150 all told, and that £3000 was contributed by each Candidate for Election expenses, while another £3000 was contributed by political friends. Both Candidates assure us they had no notion that the
money would or could possibly be spent in bribery or treating. They appear nice gentlemanly fellows, hut it is odd that they had no sus
picions as to the use that was being made of their cheque-books. Mr. Timothy Higgins acknowledged that he had received £10 for running messages, another £10 to see that the other messengers ran messages, besides £20 to see that no, bribing went on, and an addi
tional douceur of £30 to be sure that there was no treating. This looks to us like corruption, though we don’t feel quite sure about it. Other cases of a similar nature occurred, so we can only end by recommending this ancient and most respectable borough to the mercy of your honourable House.
Ham Sandwich and Veal.
This dirty and decayed little town, or two towns, appears, to our unanimous judgment, to be the most corrupt borough in the United Kingdom. At least, we cannot possibly imagine any borough more corrupt. There are upon the Register 500 burgesses, and of these we have to report that 495 were either directly or indirectly bribed.
Of the remaining five, one is a hopeless idiot, or has the reputation of being so. Possibly this reputation may arise from the fact,
credibly reported to us as true, that on the occasion of a former election this deluded individual refused £5 and a glass of beer for his vote, on so-called “ conscientious” grounds. If so, we are perfectly certain that there is no other man, woman, or child in Ham Sandwich and Veal that feels any such ridiculous scruples...
The four other persons who were not proved to have been bribed, can be easily accounted for. One refused to receive £10 for his vote, considering the sum offered much too small, and so didn’t vote at all. Another had every intention of taking £5 from each side, but unfor
tunately couldn’t find the place of distribution, and had to go with
out. The two others left the town hurriedly on the day that the Commission arrived at it, and are not expected to return until the Commission has finished its labours. This satisfactorily accounts for the whole population, so we can finish off this report here; and jolly glad we are to be done with it. We cannot, however, close without recording a most excellent joke made by one of our number, which we feel sure will amuse your honourable House. On Mr. Smithkin’s remarking that “he had been promised £10 to vote blue, but had
not yet received it, ” Mr. (rising) Jeunior replied, “ Then I suppose you are all in the blues? ” This appears to us a witticism so con
summate in itself, and so admirably suited to the character of the occasion and. the dignity of the inquiry, that we should fail in our duty if we omitted to record it. And your Commissioners will ever pray, &c.
Oxborough.
This place is a Cathedral town. Therefore we need hardly say it is corrupt. Cathedral towns always are corrupt. There is some
thing in a Gothic pillar, or a Norman arch, which irresistibly leads to depravity; and an Early English spire seems to be a direct incentive to vice (not the “Vice, ” of course).
It is very pleasing among the dark aspects of electoral affairs, to notice one feature of these elections, which seems to point to better times coming. As everybody knows, there is an ancient University here; and, of course, the University has nothing whatever to do
with the City Election. Yet, notwithstanding this, there are great and good men among the professors and lecturers, who go out of their way to discharge their duty to their country, actually con
tributing as much as £50 a head to the expenses (of course the necessary expenses) of the Election; and when that is not sufficient, running up to town, and getting as much as £ 3000 from the Head Centre of their respective parties to expend in — well, necessary expenses — as we said before. This patriotic devotion to their duty as citizens cannot be too highly commended.
Various sad cases of bribery have come before us, also of treating; but the gloom of our proceedings has been uniformly enlightened by comic incidents. Thus, Mr. Jeremy Sparks, who confessed to having received £15 for purposes of treating, expended £3 in treating others, and £12 in treating himself. When asked if he considered such treatment of the funds honest, he replied, “Oh, yes,
quite, ” which, we need hardly say, convulsed the Court and the audience with laughter, as was only natural.
The “lay clerk of St. John’s College” (we are not quite sure what
a “ lay clerk ” is, hut fancy it’s some inferior kind of election agent) who gave evidence as to his having paid £10 to one man because “ he was handy with his fists, ” appears to us to have somewhat exceeded his duties as a “ lay clerk. ” Another of the agents, who must be a wag in his way, described himself as “ Chichele Professor of Modern History, ” a harmless pleasantry which must have rather tickled that venerable University official when he heard of it.
We really can’t find anything more that’s likely to interest your honourable House, and we beg to recommend either that the place be disfranchised — which seems rather severe — or that the Cathedral, as the great centre of corruption, he immediately destroyed — which appears to us a more statesmanlike plan. It’s not much of a cathe
dral, and wouldn’t he missed, except by the Dean and the aged woman who sweeps it out once a week.