JOHNNY UPSET THE COACH. Earl Grey's Government in 1834 lost a large body of support by its practical acceptance of the principle of the alienation of Irish Church revenues to secular purposes. When Lord John Russell announced himself in favour of the principle, Lord Stanley wrote on a slip of paper, which was passed along the Treasury bench, "Johnny has upset the coach," and before the month was out Stanley and Graham resigned, the fall of the Government happening soon afterwards. JUDICIOUS BOTTLE-HOLDING. After England had successfully supported the Sultan in refusing to surrender to Austria the Hungarian refugees who had fled to Turkey on the suppression of the revolt in 1848, a deputation waited upon Lord Palmerston at the Foreign Office to thank him for his exertions on behalf of Kossuth and his colleagues. In his reply he said "much generalship and judgment had been required, and during the struggle a good deal of judicious bottle-holding was obliged to be brought into play." This happy notion seems to have first presented itself to Palmerston's mind in a different, and perhaps more humorous form. During the negotiations the British fleet had been sent to the Dardanelles with instructions to proceed to the Bosphorus if the Sultan asked for it. We learn from Mr. Evelyn Ashley's "Life of Lord Palmerston" that on being asked by the Russian Ambassador in London why the ships were there, Palmerston said, "It is for the Sultan like holding a bottle of salts to the nose of a lady who has been frightened." It would be difficult to find a better example than these two phrases afford of the apt use of simile a delicate, inoffensive one for the suspicious ambassador ; one drawn from the prize ring for the gratification of pugnacious British supporters after danger of hostilities was over. The bottleholding phrase tickled the fancy of the public, and for many a day after Punch played upon the idea of Palmerston as "the judicious bottle-holder." ON THE SIDE OF THE Angels. The instance last mentioned is by no means the only one in which the pencil of Punch has helped to immortalise a striking observation. No one who has seen it is likely to forget the cartoon representing "Dizzy" as an angel. His celebrated declaration has been was not uttered on a political occasion. It was in 1864 that, in a reference to the conclusions of modern science, he said :— I hold that the highest function of science is the interpretation of nature, and the interpretation of the highest nature is the highest science. What is the highest nature? Man is the highest nature. But I must say that when I compare the interpretation of the highest nature by the most advanced and most fashionable school of modern science-when I compare that with the older teachings with which we are familiar, I am not prepared to say the lecture-room is more scientific than the church. What is the question which is now placed before society with a glib assurance which to us is most astounding? That question is this-Is man an ape or an angel? I am on the side of the angels. I repudiate with indignation and abhorrence these new-fangled theories. JAMES SYKES. A SHAKESPEARIAN PANTOMIME. IT T needs some courage to give utterance to the opinion that during the last fifty years or so pantomime has done yeoman's service in the cause of the drama. For managers of the patent theatres it has proved over and over again the true Pactolian stream, yielding of its abundance to enable more solid and less remunerative fare to be presented, without the dread of a balance on the wrong side. Even actor-managers like Macready, not at all inclined to "flicker down to brainless pantomime," have found their resolution wavering before such grateful results; much as the resolution of the drink-anathematising divine wavers when he is proffered a substantial cheque towards the church funds from some large-minded brewer or other. But time out of mind the man in the street has been attuned to look at things in a different aspect. Never more so than in the eighteenth century, when poor, simple-minded Harlequin was considered Shakespeare's bitterest foe. Remark, for instance, the tone in which Lewis Theobald, in 1725, dedicated his "Shakespeare Restored" to his friend John Rich, the great pantomime producer of Lincoln's Inn Fields. "It may seem," he says, "a little particular, that, when I am attempting to restore Shakespeare, I should address that Work to One who has gone a great way towards shutting him out of Doors; that is, towards banishing him the Benefit of the Stage, and confining us to read him in the closet. Let me stand excused from intending any personal accusation here; for it is not You, indeed, but that Affection with which Entertainments of a different Species are pursued, has done this; and therefore I would fain transfer the Fault from You to the Town. Let us lay it upon the Times, as we are pleas'd to do some of our sins upon Fate and Providence. perhaps the very frame of our nature is concern'd; and the Dissectors of an Eye and Ear can tell us to what Membranes or Organs we owe the communication of Pleasures, in which the rational soul has no share. So shall we be able to account both for the Reception of Grotesque and Opera. Or "If Pantomime be a Debauchery of the stage, it is a vice which is so becoming in the Excellence of your own Performance, that I can scarce find in my Heart to be the first to wish it cur'd. Yet as it is fabled of Achilles's Spear, that it had a virtue to heal the Wounds it made; so we may prophesy, one Time or other, that the Rust of Pantomimes will be a salve for the Recovery of Dramatic Poetry." Theobald to the contrary notwithstanding, the triumphal progress of Harlequin at this period seems to have done Shakespeare very little harm. Only a few months later, Rich favoured his patrons with performances of "King Lear," "Henry VIII," and "Julius Cæsar." But the same attitude of mind is to be noted in a musical entertainment called " Harlequin Student, or the Fall of Pantomime with the Restoration of the Drama," produced at Goodman's Fields in 1741. One of the features of this piece was an exact representation of Shakespeare's monument, "as lately erected in Westminster Abbey." It is otherwise noteworthy now as having afforded Garrick the basis of his famous "Christmas Gambol in the manner of the Italian Comedy,"called "Harlequin's Invasion," which was produced at Drury Lane in December 1759, and enjoyed such vogue there as to be frequently revived during the succeeding quarter of a century. The invasion, of course, was that of Parnassus, from which the parti. coloured hero is driven with contumely, and King Shakespeare restored to his own. All this by way of preamble. A little better than three years later, a pantomime writer whose name has not descended to posterity committed the audacity of the century. He united the forces of Shakespeare and Harlequin with the hope of conquering the public. The result was a harlequinade called "Shakespeare's Choice Spirits, or Sir John Falstaff in Pantomime," produced at Sadler's Wells in May 1763. With the rising of the curtain, the Spirit of Fancy slid down a rainbow to terra firma (just as the babies used to do in our nonage!), and began warbling as follows: From that bright mansion which gave Genius birth, I, Fancy, on a rainbow reach'd the earth. On this well-peopl'd spot I'll keep my court, It is Fancy, I know, nay you all know it too, They first must please Fancy who wish to please you. I appear on this stage; Some folks fancy this thing and some fancy that, Examine the methods pursued by mankind, They've a right to do so; For what beauty fancies you cannot condemn, Sincere wisdom, taste, learning, by me are inspired, No, no, no; but mum Among ye I'm come To present a petition and beg a decree; That for my sake you'll fancy to-night what you sec." The Spirit waves her wand, the rocky landscape disappears, and Harlequin, Punch, Pierrot, and Scaramouch are discovered dancing before Falstaff, Doll Tearsheet, and Pistol. Then Fancy, bowing to the Fat Knight, sings : What, Falstaff my friend, my favourite Sir John, Such liquor as Shakespear (my best begot) drew ye When in Eastcheap with Prince, Poins and Gadshill he knew ye. And Jack Falstaff to-night, in a dance shall appear. If word-catching critics should take this amiss, And say that great Shakespear is lower'd by this. We tell them, and all other fault-finding pow'rs, They may please their own fancy, and we will please ours! Some very sorry pantomime fooling follows. Falstaff, Doll, and the rest are discovered in a tap-room drinking. An owl startles them by arising from the table and settling upon Bardolph's shoulders, causing the worthy of the rubicund visage to run distractedly off the stage. In another scene Doll, in endeavouring to elope with Harlequin, is seized by Pistol and a constable, but slips from them in leaving a false arm in possession of each. But the climax of inane buffoonery was reached in a scene representing Chelsea Bun-house, with Harlequin as the baker. Pistol having purchased some buns, finds them too hot, and places them in his hat to cool. This Harlequin steals, and claps suddenly on the owner's head. Falstaff, in laughing at the discomfiture of his satellite, sits down upon a chair on which a number of hot buns have been bountifully bespread. It is now Pistol's turn to laugh, and both run out making mows at each other. The whole concludes with the apotheosis of |