CARTOONING CHINA

This book explores the series of cartoons of China and the Chinese that were
published in the popular British satirical magazine Punch over a sixty-year period
from 1841 to 1901.
Filled with political metaphors and racial stereotypes, these illustrations served
as a powerful tool in both refecting and shaping notions and attitudes towards
China at a tumultuous time in Sino-British history. A close reading of both
the visual and textual satires in Punch reveals how a section of British society
visualised and negotiated with China as well as Britain’s position in the global
community. By contextualising Punch’s cartoons within the broader frameworks
of British socio-cultural and political discourse, the author engages in a critical
enquiry of popular culture and its engagements with race, geopolitical propaganda,
and public consciousness.
With a wide array of illustrations, this book in the Global Perspectives in
Comics Studies series will be an important resource for scholars and researchers
of cultural studies, political history and Empire, Chinese studies, popular culture,
Victoriana, as well as media studies. It will also be of interest to readers who want
to learn more about Punch, its history, and Sino-British relations.

Amy Matthewson has a PhD degree in history from the School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS), University of London, United Kingdom.
Global Perspectives in Comics Studies
Series editor: Harriet E.H. Earle, Shefeld Hallam University, UK

Global Perspectives in Comics Studies focuses on comics as an international form,

with histories as rich and complex as the stories that fll the pages. We bring
together original scholarship on a wide range of themes and theoretical concerns
that span the globe. These texts present outstanding bold interventions into exist-
ing scholarly conversations, with the freedom (indeed, explicit encouragement) to
collocate works by creators from diferent national and analytical traditions, as well
as genres within the form. The books in the series are concerned with ofering
fresh perspectives on established concepts and theories through the comics form.
Our aim in this series is to forge links across the feld, to foreground artistic and
academic contexts that are underrepresented, and to give attention to comics in all
their various guises. Ultimately, this series wants to encourage readers to challenge
their existing perspectives on a form that is central to the reading lives of so many.

Books in the series

Cartooning China
Punch, Power, & Politics in the Victorian Era
Amy Matthewson

Burning Down the House

Latin American Comics in the 21st Century
Edited by Laura Cristina Fernández, Amadeo Gandolfo and Pablo Turnes

Comics and Migration

Practices and Representation
Edited by Ralf Kauranen, Olli Löytty, Aura Nikkilä and Anna Vuorinne

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

Global-Perspectives-in-Comics-Studies/book-series/GPCS
CARTOONING CHINA
Punch, Power, & Politics
in the Victorian Era

Amy Matthewson
Cover image: @ Getty Images
First published 2022
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Amy Matthewson
The right of Amy Matthewson to be identifed as author of this work has
been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-0-367-45822-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-46099-0 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-02557-3 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003025573
Typeset in Bembo
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
To: Helen Wang
CONTENTS

List of illustrations viii

Series editor’s preface xi
Acknowledgements xiii

1 Introduction 1

2 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”: the men behind the magazine 26

3 “Punch is an English Institution”: the attitude of the magazine 49

4 “A Chinese Puzzle”: the trajectory of negating China 71

5 “A Legacy of Discord”: war and rebellion 114

6 Conclusion 152

Bibliography 159
Index 168
ILLUSTRATIONS

1.1 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 119 (4 July 1900), p. 1 2

1.2 “Another ‘Sick Man’” Punch, Vol. 114 (8 January 1898), p. 7 10
1.3 “Nobody Looking” Punch, Vol. 107 (24 November 1894), p. 247 13
1.4 “Wilful Wilhelm” Punch, Vol. 102 (26 March 1892), p. 146 14
1.5 “Under the Censor’s Stamp” Punch, Vol. 75 (23 November
1878), p. 230 15
1.6 “A Break in the Game” Punch, Vol. 71 (28 October 1876), p. 181 16
1.7 “Chinamania” Punch, Vol. 85 (15 September 1883), p. 127 20
2.1 “The Mahogany Tree” Punch, Vol. 101 (18 July 1891), pp. 31–32 27
2.2 “Authors’ Miseries. No. VI.” Punch, Vol. 15
(4 November 1848), p. 198 33
2.3 “Who would have thought it?” Punch, Vol. 28 (21 April 1855),
p. 155 36
2.4 “The British Lion’s Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger” Punch,
Vol. 33 (22 August 1857), pp. 76–77 37
2.5 “Ye Aesthetic Young Geniuses” Punch, Vol. 75 (21
September 1878), p. 122 41
2.6 “East and West” Punch, Vol. 119 (10 October 1900), p. 257 42
3.1 “For Queen and Empire” Punch, Vol. 112 (19 June 1897),
pp. 302–303 50
3.2 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 10 (14 March 1846), p. 114 55
3.3 “Nothing in the Papers!” Punch, Vol. 61 (21 October 1871), p. 167 56
3.4 “The Avenger!” Punch, Vol. 119 (25 July 1900), pp. 64–65 57
3.5 “The French Porcupine” Punch, Vol. 36 (19 February 1859), p. 75 58
3.6 “Our Siamese Twins” Punch, Vol. 56 (13 February 1869), p. 59 59
3.7 “In the Movement” Punch, Vol. 119 (29 August 1900), p. 155 60
 Illustrations ix

3.8 “Britannia Sympathises with Columbia” Punch, Vol. 48 (6

May 1865), p. 183 61
3.9 “The Rhodes Colossus” Punch, Vol. 103 (10 December 1892),
p. 266 62
3.10 “The Triumph of Civilisation!” Punch, Vol. 107
(11 August 1894), p. 62 63
3.11 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 1 (1841), p. 27 65
3.12 “Back Again!” Punch, Vol. 85 (27 October 1883), p. 195 66
3.13 “Putting His Foot In It” Punch, Vol. 93 (10 December 1887),
p. 267 67
4.1 “The Happy Family in Hyde Park” Punch, Vol. 21
(19 July 1851), p. 38 72
4.2 “Chinese Soldiers retiring from Service” Punch’s Guide to the
Chinese Exhibition at Knightsbridge, Vol. 21 (1851), p. 39 75
4.3 “Case IV. – A Sempstress” Punch, Vol. 6 (1844), p. 220 78
4.4 “Case IX. – A Shopkeeper” Punch, Vol. 6 (1844), p. 221 79
4.5 “Dinner-Time at the Crystal Palace” Punch, Vol. 21
(5 July 1851), p. 16 82
4.6 “The Pound and the Shilling” Punch, Vol. 20 (14 June 1851),
p. 247 83
4.7 “The Great Derby Race for Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-One”
Punch, Vol. 20 (24 May 1851), pp. 213–215 85
4.8 “The Great Barbarian Dragon That Will Eat Up ‘The Brother
of the Moon,’ &c. &c. &c.” Punch, Vol. 25 (3 September 1853),
pp. 98–99 87
4.9 “May Day, Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-One” Punch, Vol. 20 (3
May 1851), pp. 179–181 88
4.10 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 24 (18 June 1853), p. 249 89
4.11 “London Dining Rooms, 1851” Punch Almanack for 1851, n.p. 90
4.12 “The Keeper’s Nightmare” Punch Almanack for 1871, n.p. 92
4.13 “An Invitation” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 March 1857), p. 105 96
4.14 “The Great Chinese Warriors Dah-Bee and Cob-Den” Punch,
Vol. 32 (7 March 1857), p. 95 97
4.15 “A Lesson to John Chinaman” Punch, Vol. 32 (9 May 1857),
p. 185 98
4.16 “What Can You Say for Your Friends Now, Richard?” Punch,
Vol. 32 (9 May 1857), p. 184 99
4.17 “A Chanson for Canton” Punch, Vol. 34 (10 April 1858), p. 151 100
4.18 “A Little Tea Party” Punch, Vol. 35 (4 September 1858), p. 97 102
4.19 “What We Ought to Do in China” Punch, Vol. 39 (22
December 1860), p. 245 103
4.20 “New Elgin Marbles” Punch, Vol. 39 (24 November 1860), p. 206 105
4.21 “The Real Barbarian from China” Punch, Vol. 40 (5
January 1861), p. 5 107
x Illustrations

5.1 “A Touching Appeal” Punch, Vol. 107 (17 November 1894),

p. 235 115
5.2 “Front page” Punch, Vol. 107 (11 August 1894), n.p. 119
5.3 “Jap the Giant-Killer” Punch, Vol. 107 (29 September 1894),
p. 151 120
5.4 “Little Ah Sid and the Butterfy-Bee” Punch, Vol. 107 (20
October 1894), p. 182 121
5.5 “The Jap in the China Shop” Punch, Vol. 108 (27 April 1895),
p. 194 123
5.6 “The Infant Phenomenon” Punch, Vol. 107 (22
December 1894), p. 290 124
5.7 “John Stands Aloof ” Punch, Vol. 108 (4 May 1895), p. 211 127
5.8 “Embarras de Richesse” Punch, Vol. 114 (5 February 1898), p. 55 128
5.9 “A Thin Disguise” Punch, Vol. 109 (2 November 1895), p. 206 129
5.10 “Seaside Lodgings” Punch, Vol. 111 (19 December 1896), p. 295 130
5.11 “Artful Dowager” Punch, Vol. 115 (8 October 1898), p. 158 131
5.12 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 117 (16 August 1899), p. 74 132
5.13 “Honour à La Russe” Punch, Vol. 114 (7 May 1898), p. 211 133
5.14 “Open At Last!” Punch, Vol. 117 (23 August 1899), p. 91 134
5.15 “Sentinels” Punch, Vol. 114 (16 April 1898), p. 175 135
5.16 “The Fight for the Foot-Plate” Punch, Vol. 116 (15
March 1899), p. 127 136
5.17 “The Open Mouth; or, the Integrity of China” Punch, Vol. 116
(10 May 1899), p. 218 137
5.18 “A New Rôle” Punch, Vol. 114 (15 January 1898), p. 14 138
5.19 “What Will They Do With ‘Em?” Punch, Vol. 114 (18
June 1898), p. 278 139
5.20 “A Game of Speculation” Punch, Vol. 114 (15 January 1898),
p. 19 140
5.21 “Giving Him a Lift” Punch, Vol. 114 (12 March 1898), p. 115 141
5.22 “Hold On, John!” Punch, Vol. 114 (2 April 1898), p. 151 142
5.23 “The Same Old Bear” Punch, Vol. 118 (13 June 1900), p. 419 143
5.24 “A Legacy of Discord” Punch, Vol. 118 (27 June 1900), p. 459 143
5.25 “Rubbing It In!” Punch, Vol. 119 (4 July 1900), p. 11 144
5.26 “To Pekin!” Punch, Vol. 119 (18 July 1900), p. 47 145
5.27 “Quite at Home” Punch, Vol. 120 (20 March 1901), p. 223 146
6.1 “Make Your Game!” Punch Almanack for 1901, n.p. 153
6.2 “Outside, Sir! Outside!” Punch, Vol. 94 (2 June 1888), p. 255 154
SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE

I am delighted to present the frst book in the Global Perspectives in Comics Studies
series. Cartooning China: Punch, Power, and Politics in the Victorian Era is an incisive
new study of the relationship between iconic British publication Punch and Sino-
British politics in the Victorian period. Punch has been the topic of many research
texts since the fnal issue’s publication in 2002; these studies have tended to focus
on the publication’s position either as long-running serialised journalism or as a
forum for satire.
Amy Matthewson pairs close visual analysis with historical contextualisation and
research into the artists and publishers themselves to provide a rounded and com-
prehensive analysis of sixty years of Punch (1841–1901). Her dual focus on both the
creatives and the specifc political moment is both innovative and interdisciplinary.
She deftly highlights the importance of considering the publication contexts and
creators while analysing any specifc theme. This book presents the ways in which
political cartoons served as a powerful vehicle in shaping and disseminating con-
structions of China to a wider reading public. We peek behind the curtain into the
world of the publisher and the often-turbulent connections between artists, their
politics, and their personalities.
Matthewson’s book has a broad interest base, given the inherently interdiscipli-
nary focus of Comics Studies and the inclusion of Area Studies in her work. This
means that this monograph would be of interest to scholars of comics (especially
political comics and cartooning), journalism and serialisation, history, Chinese
studies, politics, and sociology, with interest for those studying these subjects an
additional market. Studies on political and editorial cartooning are not always fully
welcomed under the umbrella of Comics Studies, despite there being clear argu-
ments for their inclusion within the feld. I hope that the publication of this study
in an explicitly Comics Studies series will help lead to the inclusion of these sub-
genres in the wider academic conversation.
xii Series editor’s preface

It is my great pleasure to introduce this book and to inaugurate a series that,

I hope, will make a strong contribution to the development and internationalisa-
tion of Comics Studies.
Harriet E.H. Earle
Shefeld Hallam University
United Kingdom
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have been a tremendous support during the course of the research
for this book. At last, I am able to acknowledge and thank those who helped bring
this book to fruition.
My initial research began years ago while doing my master’s degree at the University of
Victoria. It was during this period of time that I had the great pleasure of being supervised
by Gregory Blue, who continues to inspire and support me on my research endeavours.
I am thankful for his inexhaustible patience and invaluable comments over the years.
I would like to thank my doctoral supervisors at the School of Oriental and
African Studies, University of London, Lars Laamann, and Andrea Janku for their
invaluable insights and guidance. My thanks go to Frances Wood for her support
and to Lily Chang for her limitless patience and constant encouragement.
Thank you Harriet Earle, my editor, for your enthusiasm right from the start.
I am grateful to Shoma Choudhury and Shloka Chauhan, who have been respon-
sive and patient throughout the process. Thank you Helen Walasek for always
being interested and excited about this research.
The research for this book would not have been possible without the generos-
ity from institutions, for which I am grateful. SOAS, University of London for the
Research Studentship, Language Acquisition Support, and Travel Grants; Univer-
sities’ China Committee in London; the Sino-British Fellowship Trust, and the
British Association for Victorian Studies.
With afection, this book is dedicated to my extended family. Thank you for
all the support, love, and laughter. Arjmand Aziz, Lois Barnett, Olena Borodyna,
Nancy Charley, Joy Fisher, Gary and Trudy Hamilton, Eric “Ba” Haaranen,
Irene González-López, Laura Misic and Leo Misic, Yen Ooi, Sofa Podlegaeva,
Josepha Richard, Margaret Scaia, Anita Siu, Marcia Thompson, Kevin Thompson,
Janice Tsai, and Monica Walker; to the Brunch Ladies: Angela Cheung and Lau-
rie Taylor; to the Confabulists: Paul Bevan, John Cloake, Mary Ginsberg, Helen
Wang; to the Cultured Ladies: Flore Janssen and Eleanor Veness.
1
INTRODUCTION

On 4 July 1900, Punch artist Edward Linley Sambourne created a Chinese Humpty
Dumpty on the cusp of a great fall (Figure 1.1). The image is captivating with all
its meaningful details found within this seemingly simple image. The caricature
depicts exaggerated features to denote racial diference, the style of clothes and hair
braided into a queue highlights foreignness, and the archaic sword and animalistic
hands represent barbarity. By situating this cartoon within the broader historical
and epistemological contexts, the Chinese Humpty Dumpty ofers cultural codes
Punch readers could understand: a familiar and well-loved nursery rhyme used to
convey patriotism and imperialist ideology. The image directs the viewer to gaze
upon a Chinese Humpty Dumpty just about to take his tumble at a time when
Britain and China were engaged in armed confict during the Boxer Uprising. The
perspective is from a British soldier among, perhaps holding, one of the modern
bayonets in the foreground of the image. The cartoon laughs away the feasibility of
a victorious China, dispelling anxieties of any upset to the racial hierarchical order
or Britain’s position on the international stage. For, as the nursery rhyme tells us,
when Humpty Dumpty tumbles of of the Great Wall, all the Emperor’s horses, and
all the Emperor’s men, will not be able to put Humpty together again.
This book explores the series of cartoons alongside the textual satires of China
and the Chinese that were created in the British satirical magazine, Punch, since
its founding in 1841 until the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, thereby bring-
ing an end to the Victorian period. The examination of this popular magazine
reveals a nuanced understanding into how Punch used China as a site upon which
wider anxieties of Britain’s social stratifcations, as well as its global position as
an imperial power, were both shaped and negotiated. I begin with the image of
the Chinese Humpty Dumpty because it ofers a fascinating confation of visual
imagination and the power of cartoons and caricatures in disseminating a particu-
lar set of ideas about China. The visual and textual satires were, in fact, not about

DOI: 10.4324/9781003025573-1
2 Introduction

FIGURE 1.1 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 119 (4 July 1900), p. 1.

Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

China at all; rather, they reveal Britain’s knowledge of China – or what British
readers thought they knew – the continually evolving Sino-British relationship,
and fuctuating anxieties and tensions at diferent stages of Britain’s imperialist
developments.
As perceptions of China changed, so too did the visual and textual discourses
circulating in British society, including those transmitted into satirical form in the
pages of Punch. The setting and tone of Punch’s representations of China ebbed
and fowed along with events and circumstances and formed an important part
of a broader visualisation and discourse of China within Victorian society. These
cartoons ofer a complex understanding of the various, and at times contradictory,
forms of China within the British imaginaries which, in turn, reveal British self-
perceptions and self-refexivity on its own society as well as its role in the world
at large.
While there were other prominent newspapers and magazines, Punch wielded
considerable cultural and political infuence in British society, in particular among
the middle class. Punch did not, however, refect “Victorian society” as a collec-
tive entity. John Ruskin was right when he highlighted that the visual world that
Punch satirised was exclusively London. He remarked that three of Punch’s artists,
John Tenniel, John Leech, and George du Maurier, are “in the most narrow sense,
London citizens . . . the street-corner is the face of the whole earth, and the only
two quarters of the heavenly horizon are the east and west – End.”1 In the words of
Dominic Williams, Punch is a useful source because “it ofered a particular class an
image of itself, its nation, and its place in the world.”2
 Introduction 3

The aim of this book is to place political cartoons and caricatures front and cen-
tre of serious historical enquiry in order to explore the complex networks of ideas,
attitudes, and ideologies of a particular class in Victorian society. Punch provides
an excellent case study as the magazine’s cartoons were signifcant conveyors of
information and powerful agents that shaped perceptions of the self and “other” in
nineteenth-century Britain. Political cartoons point to the complexities in the rela-
tionships between artist, writers, editors, the processes by which they were made for
an intended audience as well as the socio-political frameworks in which they arose.
Due to their ephemeral nature, they are invaluable sources in attempting to under-
stand past attitudes; while cartoons do not passively refect reality, they do “help to
crystallise attitudes, and express in pithy and succinct fashion the thinking of a broad
segment of society.”3 Punch’s series of cartoons of China highlight the unequivocal
power dynamics in Victorian Britain’s social and racial hierarchies during a time of
social tensions and imperial fervour at home as well as geopolitical awareness and
heightened consciousness of Britain’s standing on the international stage.

Theoretical framework

On representation
As early as 1814, ofcial records make reference to the Chinese as transient sea-
men employed by the East India Company but their numbers were minimal and
apart from intermittent visitors and diplomats, the frst Chinese did not appear
in Britain with frequency until the treaties of Nanking and Peking in 1842 and
1860, respectively.4 By the 1890s, the China-born population of the metropole
amounted to approximately three hundred.5 This negligible number is important
when considering the ways in which “knowledge” circulated about an essentially
invisible and voiceless community. During a time of frequent Sino-British contact
and clashes, information about China and its people was disseminated through a
range of text, such as traveller accounts and news media, as well as visuals, such as
exhibitions, illustrated periodicals, and personal photographs that were taken by
travellers and the foreign community in China and then sent home to family and
friends in Britain.
The act of making something or someone visible is to gain knowledge and
power, however, illusive. Punch did not create new visions of the Chinese; rather,
they used familiar tropes to provide its readers with a sense of reassurance and sta-
bility in an ever-changing and uncertain world of imperialism, global capitalism,
and immigration. These caricatures signifed a way to classify and understand
thereby rendering people, places, and objects less frightening and threatening.
As Richard Scully and Andrekos Varnava point out, comic artists “can give sin-
gular form to the multiple, more nebulous conceptions on which they draw for
inspirations, then disseminate those images to mass readerships.”6 As convenient
visual stereotypes, the Chinese became “recognized, normalized, and therefore
incorporated into established power relations.”7 The link between power and
4 Introduction

visibility is signifcant and will be further expanded upon in two key themes: the
frst is power behind representation (in this case, Punch magazine) and the second
is power of representation (the images themselves as cartoons and caricatures).

Power behind representation

Who has the authority and power to represent and who is being represented? In
Edward Said’s 1978 work, Orientalism, he argues that in the post-Enlightenment
period, Europe held the power to represent, manage, and even produce the societies
and peoples of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East “politically, sociologically, militarily,
ideologically, scientifcally, and imaginatively.”8 By focusing primarily on nineteenth-
and twentieth-century Western scholarship of the Islamic world, Said suggested that
Oriental studies presumed diferences to be ontological and this “imaginative his-
torical discourse” was both disseminated and maintained through various hegemonic
institutions.9 While Said’s work quite rightly underscores the correlation between the
production of knowledge and dynamics of power, he does not refer specifcally to the
history between Europe and China, a complex relationship that moves beyond his
theory that places the former in a superior position. The nuanced theoretical argu-
ment of Homi Bhabha on the ambivalence of colonial stereotypes better illustrates
Punch’s series of textual and visual satires of China and the Chinese.
The power of the colonial stereotype, Bhabha argues, is in the process of ambiv-
alence. For it is this force that

gives the colonial stereotypes its currency: ensures its repeatability in chang-
ing historical and discursive conjunctures; informs its strategies of individ-
uation and marginalization; produces that efect of probabilistic truth and
predictability which, for the stereotype, must always be in excess of what can
be empirically proved or logically construed.10

Colonial discourse demands an array of diferences, racial, cultural, and historical,

in order to enable “political practices of racial and cultural hierarchization” but this
otherness is also both desirable and repulsive. The stereotyped subject is simultane-
ously unknown and familiar, “other” and yet fully known and knowable thus occu-
pying an in-between space of ambivalence.11 Bhabha argues that only by removing
binary structures and acknowledging the dynamics of ambivalence can the cycle of
repetition in colonial discourse be broken.12
British notions and attitudes of China, as Bhabha states, fuctuated between
extremes of adulation and derision. The creation and dissemination of Chinese
stereotyped fgures “undercut their ability to represent themselves”13 and Punch
members of staf “devoted much time and talent to mocking or laughing at people
far beyond their own class and ethnicity – namely, the Other.”14 With all these
important considerations in mind, how does one

represent other cultures? What is another culture? Is the notion of a distinct

culture (or race, or religion, or civilization) a useful one, or does it always
 Introduction 5

get involved either in self-congratulation (when one discusses one’s own) or

hostility and aggression (when one discusses the “other”)?15

The points of oscillation between admiration and contempt within the series of Punch
cartoons of China coincided with imperial rivalries within changing socio-political
circumstances. The subjects were chosen on the basis of topicality in the daily press
and thus the news media was integral in circulating ideas and solidifying attitudes.
By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the media was already
understood as an adjudicator able to sway public opinion, and questions arose on
the function and power of the press. The Liberals, such as John A. Hobson, believed
that the press functioned as a commercial enterprise that tended to cater to the
most popular and, regrettably, lowest taste, in order to appeal to the widest audi-
ence needed to attract advertisers. Others believed the press was an opportunity
to make positive changes in society.16 This commercialisation and manipulation of
the press captured the interest of the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas. His
research originally published in 1962 titled The Structural Transformation of the Public
Sphere calls attention to die Öfentlichkeit, the public sphere. His work explores the
shift in function of the public sphere, which, he argues, moved from a space of
rational and critical debate to the current system of “refeudalization” in which large
organisations manage, exploit, and propagate public opinion.
Originating in the eighteenth century, the public sphere ofered private indi-
viduals a space to debate public matters and this gave citizens the ability to infu-
ence power by forming a consensus and holding the state accountable. Habermas
pinpoints a dramatic change by the second half of the nineteenth century when
the press underwent a transformation in its development and commercialisation,
resulting in the media shaping debates and opinions rather than being a vehicle of
transmission. He points to “opinion management” that not only resides in advertis-
ing but also extends to “creating news events or exploiting events that attract atten-
tion.” The press thus manipulates public opinion by employing “psychology and
techniques of the feature and pictorial publicity connected with the mass media
and with their well tested human interest topics.”17
Habermas’ argument is compelling, however, scholars have been quick to point
out that he idealises the bourgeois public sphere. Habermas neglects the plebeian
public sphere, thereby ignoring the varied institutions, such as trade unions and
their corresponding value systems. There is also an absence of minority groups and
gender in his discussion. Nevertheless, his theory is both useful and applicable in
relation to this study. Punch staf members were all white men from the bourgeoi-
sie and thus the composition of the magazine excluded the voices of the working
class, minority groups, and women. Habermas’ arguments on the problems of rep-
resentation in the media, the relationship between the media and politics, and the
media’s ability to manipulate public opinion are especially relevant, as will be made
clear in the following chapters.
An essential aspect that Habermas fails to discuss is visual forms of communi-
cation. He deals with rational and critical argument as a verbal process and only
6 Introduction

includes visual language when he refers to the ways in which the press manipulates
public opinion. Is it feasible to have a rational debate through visual argument?
I cannot provide an answer to this but am intrigued by the possibility. Punch art-
ist Charles Keene found it easier to illustrate his meaning in conversation than
to explain it in words. George Layard records dinner one evening when Keene,
noticing the lady next to him confused about something he said, decidedly took
the menu-card to sketch out his explanation. “I’ll draw it, then you’ll see,” he tells
her.18 John Berger argues that art reproductions are not simply illustrations but they
are themselves arguments. They argue about the original and thereby create a new
language of images. What really matters about this visual language is, as Berger
asserts, “who uses that language for what purpose.”19
Victor S. Navasky puts forward the idea of the utilisation of visuals in critical
argument, questioning the possibility while considering that the meaning in images
is in a constant state of fuidity and cannot be controlled once released. Visual argu-
ment is therefore open to uncertainty and misunderstanding while simultaneously,
and paradoxically, able to fx meaning or an idea into one’s head. Most frustrating
for the target of satirical attack, there is little recourse to defend oneself. Navasky
explains,

if you don’t like something that is written about you, you can always send
a letter to the editor, even if only in your head. The wounding caricature
does not easily lend itself to such a remedy. And because an image is more
“public” than words . . . it can be more humiliating . . . and its target may
feel unfairly victimized and impotent to do anything about it. The only way
really to answer a cartoon is with another cartoon, and there is, for all practi-
cal purposes, no such thing as a cartoon to the editor.20

For Navasky, one of the most signifcant aspects of cartoons and caricatures is that
they are visual and thus more powerful than words. Keene would have agreed. He
sometimes complained that his Punch cartoons failed to be appreciated because of
the accompanying captions. Layard mused that by comparison to the image Keene
created, the text seemed “like the sermon to the deaf Sufolk woman” and was
“won’erful poor stuf.”21
For Punch readers, it was easy to skim through or entirely dismiss the columns
of text, but not the cartoons. Punch artist and writer William Thackeray was
right when he annoyed his writer colleagues by commenting that most people
bought the magazine for its pictures.22 To Henry James, “social and political cari-
catures . . . [are] only journalism made doubly vivid” and while journalism “pro-
vides the criticism of the moment at the moment,” it is a caricature that provides
“criticism at once simplifed and intensifed by a plastic form.”23 The following
section takes a closer look at the power of cartoons and caricatures in what Haber-
mas calls “dramatic presentation of facts and calculated stereotypes” in order to
reorient “public opinion by the formation of new authorities or symbols which
will have acceptance.”24
 Introduction 7

Power of representation
Caricature, from the Italian caricare meaning “to load,” refers to fgures with exag-
gerated and/or distorted features in order to produce a comedic efect and they
reside within a cartoon which provides the setting.25 Since at least the eighteenth
century, caricatures have been relegated to the status of “low’” art and condemned
for violations against the canons of beauty and in this way, satirical prints were
both notable and distinguishable from “high” art. The use and location of satirical
prints also diferentiate them from other forms of art. Paintings, for example, have a
prominent place in the home or in institutions and are dictated by rules of decorum
and status whereas prints are much more easily made and transported.26 During
the nineteenth century, prints of political cartoons commenting on current events
could be rapidly circulated among friends and family while those events were still
making headlines in newspapers and at the forefront of people’s consciousness.27
One of the remarkable skills of cartoonists is the ability to illustrate their target
in “three or four strokes”28 while retaining the “essence” of the person or thing
being satirised. The aim is to enable viewers to immediately recognise who or what
is being ridiculed by a few simple exaggerations or recurring fxed details. Lord
Palmerston’s caricature, for example, was remarkably precise, and he was imme-
diately recognised in Wales by a mail carrier who saw his caricature in Punch.
Other fgures were not as easy to illustrate. Richard Cobden caused much dismay
among the Punch artists as he had “a most difcult face to sketch, and Punch was
in despair at the impossibility of producing a caricature that could be recognised
without explanatory text.”29 The simplifcation in reducing people to their essence
is signifcant; this skill, combined with exaggerated features, converts caricatures
into supercharged images.
The Swiss comic artist, Rodolphe Töpfer explains, “what reminds us instantly,
completely, is much less what resembles the object as what resembles our idea of
the object.”30 He gives the example of an outline of a donkey with “four fne legs,
an ample belly, a thin tail, and two long ears”31 asserting that an observer will
immediately recognise the contour as belonging to a donkey even if it is in no way
the actual animal. The emergence of viewers’ idea of what constitutes a donkey
is therefore rapidly awakened with only a few simple lines that capture the essen-
tial elements. This pared-down approach eliminates superfcial glamour or traits
best kept hidden from public view and conjure up the essence of what or who is
being depicted, efectively forcing viewers to focus on what could easily be missed.
The best cartoonists are said to be highly skilled at manipulating physiognomy for
the purposes of exposing “the sometimes ugly truth beneath the surface of those
lines.”32
Caricatures have the power to portray public fgures in such a ludicrous or
unfattering light that their reputation can be damaged or destroyed. It was the
Victorians who frst fully understood cartoons and caricatures as an infuential art
form that wielded power to shape and persuade public opinion through mockery.33
The British politician A.J. Mundella declared “Punch is almost the most dangerous
8 Introduction

antagonist that a politician could have opposed to him – for myself I would rather
have Punch at my back in any political or social undertaking than half the politi-
cians of the House of Commons.”34 Benjamin Disraeli made an efort to curry
favour with Punch artist John Leech in the 1840s while Disraeli’s arch-rival Wil-
liam Gladstone accepted with pleasure an invitation to dine at the Punch Table in
1893.35 Across the Atlantic, Boss Tweed, the nineteenth century New York State
Senator, expressed outrage at the efects that caricatures of himself had on public
opinion when he exclaimed, “I don’t care what they print about me, most of my
constituents can’t read anyways – but them damn pictures!”36
These politicians were acutely aware that one efective cartoon could seriously
damage their reputation, despite the seemingly harmless nature of the image. The
seriousness of satire is an important distinction between it and comedy, a separation
made apparent in newspapers where political cartoons are always found in a difer-
ent section, away from the daily funnies. Satire tends to ofer biting critiques and
opinions to current social and political events, while the aim of comedy is solely
to elicit laughter and tends to be dismissed as entirely lacking in seriousness. E.B.
White explains, “the world likes humor, but it treats it patronizingly. . . . It feels
that if a thing is funny it can be presumed to be something less than great, because
if it were truly great it would be wholly serious.”37 This does not mean that satire
is only didactical and not amusing; Punch artist John Tenniel declared, “I believe
that I have a very keen sense of humour, and that my drawings are sometimes really
funny!”38 Indeed, it is precisely the outwardly light-hearted humour of satirical
cartoons that is deceptive because within the joke, lay a cutting critique. As Mark
Twain famously observed, “against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand.”39
Political cartoons have thus been lauded as upholders of democracy and free-
dom of expression as well as efective tools in challenging or subverting established
systems. In The New York Review of Books, Ronald Dworkin wrote that cartoons
“and other forms of ridicule have for centuries, even when illegal, been among
the most important weapons of both noble and wicked political movements.”40
The right to ridicule, however, is a double-edged sword; twenty-frst-century car-
toon controversies such as the Jyllands-Posten “Muhammad” caricatures (2005), the
Charlie Hebdo massacre (2015), and most recently, the Herald Sun’s Serena Williams
caricature (2018), have brought into focus the ways in which political cartoons can
support and maintain inequalities. At times, cartoons have had a negative efect
upon minority communities when the cartoonists employ exaggerated stereotypes
that revive and perpetuate racist visualities.41
At frst glance, a caricature can appear to be “so shot through with explanation,”
such an obvious propagation of ideology or so typical and familiar in its stereotypes
that it removes the need for critical enquiry, but in reality, these illustrations give
visual shape to current socio-political events and help to defne a particular atti-
tude.42 In an increasingly globalised world, cartoons engaging with gender, class,
race, or religious sensitivities need to be carefully considered and approached with
due care. Steve Bell contends that cartoonists “have a remarkable opportunity to
get through to people in a direct way [because people] read [cartoons] in a sec-
ond.”43 W.J.T. Mitchell reminds us that pictures have a life of their own and thereby
 Introduction 9

cannot be controlled once they are out for public viewing as meaning changes
according to the observer. The message could also be confused or misunderstood
as viewers try to “read between the lines” and, in this way, may be trying to “learn
something that the artists did not know they were teaching.”44 Punch artists were
highly conscious of the importance in making the message behind their cartoons
understood and one of the ways in which this was achieved was through the use
of visual metaphors.
Visual metaphors are essential to translate abstract concepts or complex struc-
tures into an easily comprehensible image. The use of metaphors is, however, con-
tradictory; on the one hand, they are employed as a strategy to simplify complicated
ideas and on the other, they challenge the mind to question the relevance, reality,
and truth of the subject because metaphors proclaim to be true when in reality, like
Töpfer’s donkey, they are not. The formation of lines does not equate to an actual
donkey and this tension needs to be decoded by the viewer. Rudolf Wagner argues
that decoding metaphors is processed by viewers’ familiarity with the Kollektivsym-
bole, a shared collection of visuals and expressions, which both writers and artists
use in order to convey meaning.45
In the case of Punch, the magazine relied on an inherited canon of expressions
and satirical tropes that had already been familiar visual symbols by the early eight-
eenth century.46 These were the personifcation of nations into emblematic fgures,
such as John Bull or John Chinaman, or anthropomorphisation, such as the British
lion or the Chinese dragon, and these fgures were imbued with codes of national
characteristics familiar to viewers. John Bull, for example, represented honesty,
sensibility, fairness, and was fercely loyal to King – or Queen, and country. Punch
often employed John Bull as he was a well-established fgure; he was even Punch-
ifed when the magazine’s artist, John Tenniel, illustrated the allegorical fgure with
the face of their genial editor, Mark Lemon.47 Punch artists also drew from estab-
lished iconography, representing nations from animals drawn from heraldry and
commenting on global encounters and politics through well-loved fairy tales or
allusions to Shakespeare and Dickens.48
Another familiar visual metaphor frequently used is that of sleeping nations.
Since the late eighteenth century in English language publications, caricaturists
began to employ visual metaphor to depict a nation’s perceived state of being by
classifying people into a collective category attributed with historical agency.49
Allegorical fgures representing nations could be shown “asleep” to denote a lack
of modernity and the absence of people’s sense of resolve and determination to
progress their country; or they might be represented as “sick” in order to convey
the notion of a nation’s inability to mobilise and strengthen itself.50
Punch’s depiction of China and the Ottoman Empire in 1898 as “sick men”
illustrates perceptions of inertia and decay (Figure 1.2). The cartoon interacted
with textual descriptions as well as other visual understandings of China that was
disseminated to the public, a reiteration that resulted in the embedding and nor-
malisation of ideas. The North-China Herald, for example, published an article titled
“The Disease of China” and used the metaphor of “chronic disease” throughout
to explain China’s surprising defeat in the First Sino-Japanese war of 1894–1895.51
10 Introduction

FIGURE 1.2 “Another ‘Sick Man’” Punch, Vol. 114 (8 January 1898), p. 7.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

While there were important developments in cartooning during the eight-

eenth century, it was in the nineteenth century that cartoons and caricatures com-
bined forces with imperialism to have a global infuence. Cartoons are invaluable
source materials for understanding imperialism because “they themselves emerged
from imperial contexts.”52 Punch was only one of many infuential and popular
 Introduction 11

newspapers and magazines and its exclusive focus can, as Richard Scully and Henry
Miller quite rightly point out, be counterproductive.53 Punch was, however, an
important vehicle in the node of information exchange and intricately connected
with the British Empire. The widespread popularity of the magazine not only ena-
bled its home audience to engage with imperialism, but it also forged a connection
between Britain and its readers in the colonies, contributing to a complex and sig-
nifcant web of communication. Punch therefore makes an interesting case study to
view the prism of imperialism, knowledge production, and dissemination, as well
as the persuasion and crystallisation of particular notions and attitudes.

The case study

Punch as a historical source

As a historical source, Punch is unique due to its widespread popularity and infu-
ence. Scholars often refer to the magazine as a national institution54 in the Victorian
era and its circulation numbers, global infuence, and longevity55 mark as one of the
most successful magazine of the English-speaking world from its inaugural issue in
1841 until its last publication in 2002.56 The magazine was quoted in The Times as
well as the House of Commons and was read by notable fgures such as Charlotte
Brontë, Robert Browning, Henry James, C.S. Lewis, Queen Victoria, and Prince
Albert.57 There is also a testament of Punch readers extending beyond the middle
and upper classes. For example, in Wales, when the Prime Minister Lord Palm-
erston was addressed by a mail carrier, the surprised politician asked how he knew
him and the postman replied “Seen your picture in Punch, my lord.”58 Thomas
Carlyle complained that when he visited Scotland, people “pestered [him] with
questions as to who it was that wrote this, that, and the other thing in Punch.”59
Of course, the publication of a magazine or an article does not necessarily mean
that they are actually read, nor does it mean that the reader agrees with the con-
tent. In regard to actual number of readers, scholars on Victorian periodicals give a
conservative estimate of the ratio of readers to copies as fve to one.60 Table 1.1 has
the frst issue at 20,000 copies; however, the frst print run was 10,000 with two
additional print runs of 5,000 due to high demand.

TABLE 1.1 Punch Circulation Table

Year Total copies Total readers

1841 (frst edition) 20,000 100,000

1841 (September) 6,000 30,000

1842 c. 30,000 150,000

1844 22,795 113,975

(Continued)
12 Introduction

TABLE 1.1 (Continued)

Year Total copies Total readers

1845 43,220 216,100

1846 48,990 244,950

1847 39,335 196,675

1848 37,535 187,675

1849 33,255 166,275

1850 33,180 165,900

1854 48,000 240,000

1885 c. 50,000 250,000

1905 (November) 61,000 305,000

The table does not record how many subscribers shared their issue with friends
and family members or how many people pored over the magazine in public estab-
lishments such as cofee houses or gentlemen’s clubs where an assortment of news
prints, including Punch, was displayed for the enjoyment of their guests.61 One
example is found in George Orwell’s Burmese Days, a novel based on Orwell’s
experiences as a policeman in Burma. He mentions “Dear old Punch” as one of the
English papers brought into The European Club for the colonial ofcers.62
The circulation of the magazine extended beyond Britain. In 1883, Henry James
wrote, “Many people in the United States gathered their knowledge of English life
almost entirely from Punch,” to which he added, “and it would be difcult to imag-
ine a more abundant, and on the whole more accurate, informant.”63 In France and
Germany, the magazine on-and-of bans with varying degrees of censorship.
In 1894, Tenniel’s French wolf about to spring upon a Madagascar lamb as vis-
ual commentary on French colonial expansion aroused indignation from Britain’s
continental neighbours (Figure 1.3). In Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II withdrew his
subscriptions to the magazine, as well as those of members of the royal family when
he took ofence to Punch’s rendition of the struggle between the Emperor and the
Reichstag. As a response, Sambourne illustrated the Kaiser as Struwwelpeter, angrily
ripping up Punch magazines as he stands among his toys scattered and thrown
around the nursery as a result of his temper tantrum (Figure 1.4).
The Russians fared no better under Punch’s satirical attacks and the magazine
kept the Russian censors busy destroying potentially ofensive cartoons of the
Tsar and his country’s foreign policy. When Sambourne travelled to Russia, he
remarked, “Should it happen . . . that any cartoon or cut at all trenched on Russian
subjects, and especially his Majesty the Tsar, the page was either torn out or erased
in the blackest manner by the Bear’s paw.”
 Introduction 13

FIGURE 1.3 “Nobody Looking” Punch, Vol. 107 (24 November 1894), p. 247.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Sambourne subsequently took the opportunity to illustrate his observations

in a cartoon titled “Under the Censor’s Stamp” (Figure 1.5). On another occa-
sion, the ambassador to Russia, Lord Augustus Loftus, recalled an incident on
the eve of the Russo-Turkish War, when he met the Tsar, seated in an inner
saloon near a table with a number of Punch magazines. He picked up a cartoon
representing Austria, Russia, and Germany at a gambling table with the Tsar
holding down his hand with a card (Figure 1.6). He then turned to the Ambas-
sador and demanded “Expliquez-moi cela” to which Lord Loftus “felt the dif-
culty of the situation” and after collecting his thoughts, replied “your Majesty
is represented apparently as hesitating whether to continue the game.”64
These anecdotes, from the mail carrier addressing Lord Palmerston to the
French, German, and Russian reactions to Punch not only highlight the wide-
spread distribution of the magazine both nationally and internationally, but they
also give us a rare glimpse into how some audiences reacted to these images.
The anecdotes also underscore Punch as an integral vehicle in transnational
fows of information, knowledge, opinions, ideas, and cultural infuence and
its widespread dissemination was made possible with the thriving print media
industry. The Victorians witnessed new forms of communication technologies
such as technical developments in mass printing and the telegraph, systems that
14 Introduction

FIGURE 1.4 “Wilful Wilhelm” Punch, Vol. 102 (26 March 1892), p. 146.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

re-conceptualised the sense of temporality as the degree of speed in relaying infor-

mation of events happening in far-away places accelerated.
The British Empire contributed to a re-evaluation of geographical space as
once “unknown, distant, foreign” lands and people were colonised and infor-
mation made its way back to Britain either as texts or in forms of visual and
material culture. News fowed into Britain and was then disseminated out to the
home audience through one of the estimated 50,000 periodicals or newspapers
during the Victorian era.65 Simon Potter claims that, arguably, the press “was the
single most important institution acting to defne the limits for the acceptable
 Introduction 15

FIGURE 1.5 “Under the Censor’s Stamp” Punch, Vol. 75 (23 November 1878), p. 230.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

integration of the British world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries.”66
Punch was entirely dependent on the media for material to satirise and scanned the
daily press, relying especially on The Times. The magazine itself as well as the indi-
vidual men that stafed Punch formed an intricate discursive network of interactive
communications of opinions, ideas, and notions, and of ferce criticism within and
between the social and political Victorian world. As will be further discussed in the
next chapter, the editors, writers, and artists were of difering political persuasions,
therefore the politics of Punch continually re-negotiated and re-defned its position
on particular topics and frequently allowed for tensions and intersections to exist
between texts and images.
Punch’s attractive and entertaining cartoons along with the interspersed witty
text resulted in a dynamic repository of the most talked-about and of-the-moment
topics of the day. The magazine was used as a benchmark for satirical journals and
16 Introduction

FIGURE 1.6 “A Break in the Game” Punch, Vol. 71 (28 October 1876), p. 181.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

was picked up and restyled by various countries around the world, each modifying
the humour to suit their own political and cultural environments.67 The format
of Punch thus came into contact with diverse artists and writers from around the
world, who utilised and adapted imported methods and technologies to pursue and
disseminate their own agendas. Meiji Japan, for example, merged their indigenous
art form with the Ponchi-e picture (translation meaning: “Punch picture”).68
It is unsurprising that scholars exploring aspects of Victorian Britain continue
to fnd Punch as an invaluable source when investigating multifarious topics ranging
from the perceived threat of Catholicism, slavery in America, and other policies in
efect both at home and abroad.69 The magazine’s history along with its illustrious
editors, writers, and artists has also been subjects of interest. Spielmann’s research
is arguably the most comprehensible study to date. Published in 1895, The History
of Punch is a monumental work on the internal functioning of the magazine and
ofers its readers a unique and intimate glance into the inner workings as Spielmann
consulted surviving members of staf from the 1850s and 1860s and had access to
materials now no longer available.70 In 1921, Charles L. Graves wrote four vol-
umes, each titled Mr. Punch’s History of Modern England. More recent works include
Richard Altick’s impressive 1997 study on the frst ten years of Punch’s history and
Patrick Leary’s 2010 The Punch Brotherhood, which examines the diverse and often
conficting personalities of the magazine.
 Introduction 17

Despite the interest the magazine continues to hold, what is missing from this
discourse is an analysis of caricatures of the Chinese. This project hopes to fll the
gap in the historiography of Punch-ology that has to date no thorough examina-
tion of the series of satirical commentaries the magazine created of China and
the Chinese throughout the Victorian era. The cartoons that do make it into
scholarly studies tend to be highly selective and used only as supporting source
materials to the central argument. The following chapters depart from previous
scholarship that work with selected samples of Punch cartoons in order to buttress
an argument, moving away from the propensity for selectivity that, as Richard
Scully states, “plagues the use of cartoons in historical scholarship.”71 Such select-
ing can misconstrue and underestimate diversity of opinions as well as obscure the
complexities in which China was discussed at a tumultuous time in the history of
Sino-British relations.

The framework of understanding

Contextualising Punch
Mid-nineteenth-century Britain experienced cracks in the foundation of estab-
lished hierarchal divisions of class and race. Beginning in the late 1830s, the
Chartist movement was the frst mass movement of the working classes demand-
ing political rights and its rise came at a time of violent revolutions through-
out Europe. At the same time, new notions of progress and civilisation shaped
ideological perspectives over other nations while theories on race consigned
non-Europeans to an inferior status.72 The press was instrumental in the move-
ment of ideas and provided a popular and powerful medium enabling readers to
engage with new cultures. Illustrated periodicals printed a diversity of visuals:
images of bodies, architectures, and landscapes of far-away places and people
that reafrmed concepts of identities. The press also disseminated a vast range of
multivoiced expressions regarding an endless array of topics, including nuanced
political debates legitimising or critiquing various wars and foreign policies.73
In regard to China, there was an exchange of ideas and opinions between
the press in Britain and the British living in China who expressed their experi-
ences in either one of the English-language newspapers that circulated within
the foreign community or by sending in a contribution to a “home” newspaper.
Sascha Auerbach notes that despite the tales of violence and atrocities, such as
the Boxer Uprising, that found its way back to London, the event in the Brit-
ish press was rarely mentioned in connection to the Chinese neighbourhoods
in Britain. Rather, nineteenth-century public opinion on the Chinese occupied
Bhabha’s ambivalent space, oscillating between admiration and derision. Some
commended the Chinese to be a hard-working and peace-loving people while
others expressed contempt for what they perceived as insalubrious communi-
ties and immoral behaviour. There was, therefore, no static representation of the
18 Introduction

Chinese and Victorian writers and journalists provided a fuid, fragmented, and at
times contradictory narrative.74
Charles Dicken’s The Mystery of Edwin Drood (1870) and Oscar Wilde’s The Pic-
ture of Dorian Grey (1890) depict London’s Chinatown opium dens as a source of
exotic fascination and horror; Walter Besant’s 1899 visit to an opium den records
his disappointment. He declared that the only “horror of the opium den” was “the
intolerable music” that was playing in the background.75 There was also an assort-
ment of visual and material culture that dispersed information on and about China
and the Chinese. The research of Elizabeth Hope Chang and Catherine Pagani
argues that visuals, such as objects, artefacts, and commodities that took shape in a
variety of forms, including as exhibitions or as porcelain, shaped British attitudes
and notions about China. Both Chang and Pagani demonstrate the intricate con-
nection between the ocular experience and racial constructions of the Chinese,
where diferences were emphasised and stood as a negative contrast to Britain’s
sense of itself as a superior nation.76
Sarah Cheang’s research on London department shops ofers yet another
example of China’s fuctuating perception in Britain. While China was being
carved up by various rival imperial powers in the closing decade of the nine-
teenth century, luxury Chinese items were being sold to British consumers.
Cheang argues that London’s West End shops became imperial spaces where
Chinese products were sold as an expression of colonial nostalgia for “old
China” and contributed to British class identities.77 These visual and textual
forms of information about China must have made an impact to the major-
ity of Britons who would have never had the opportunity to travel to China
or interact with a Chinese person. During his disappointing visit to London’s
Limehouse, Besant estimated that there could not have been “more than a
hundred Chinese, or thereabouts” noting that compared to the Chinese com-
munity in New York, “that of London is a small thing and of no importance.”78
Besant was correct in his appraisal; by the 1890s, the China-born population in
London numbered only around three hundred.79
Within this environment where the Chinese were at once invisible and little
understood, the cartoons that Punch created using repetitive frameworks of visual
tropes perpetuated and reinforced established stereotypes of the Chinese within the
popular British imagination. Visual representations of the Chinese from 1841 to
1901 remained relatively static with Punch employing age-old lexicon of stereotypes;
however, the textual accompaniment and message in the cartoon shifted according
to developments in British politics in relation to China. China appeared as early as
1842 in a Punch Large Cut titled, “The Presentation of the Chinese Ambassador.”
These Large Cuts, discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, were the most important
cartoon in each weekly volume. What merited such a cut was chosen by the “hot-
test” topic that made headlines in the daily press and was not only too pressing for
Punch to ignore, but events would also have been at the very forefront of public
consciousness, which is essential for creating comprehensible satirical cartoons.
 Introduction 19

TABLE 1.2 Large Cut Cartoons of China and the Chinese

Punch's Large Cut Cartoons

of China and the Chinese
1841-1901
30

25 24

20

15
11
10

5 4 3
1 1
0
0
1840s 1850s 1860s 1870s 1880s 1890s 1900/1901

* 1901: ends with the death of Queen Victoria on 22 January 1901.

If the Large Cuts could be used as an indicator of the topics that preoccupied
a certain segment of Victorian society, then interest in China remained minimal
except for spikes during the 1850s and 1860s that coincided with the Second
Opium War. By the 1890s, there was a dramatic increase which corresponded to
the First Sino-Japanese war of 1894–1895. As explored in Chapter 5, the confict
between China and Japan captured British interest. The Large Cuts in the fnal
years of the nineteenth century focused on imperial rivalries and Britain’s global
standing, more so than any relationship, socio-cultural or political, with China.
Table 1.2 displays Punch’s Large Cuts of China from 1841 to 1901.
The following chapters are organised chronologically to trace the downward
trajectory of Punch’s narrative of China and the Chinese people that was directly
linked to fuctuations in Britain’s relationship with China. The 1870s and 1880s
are not examined due to the magazine’s almost non-existing number of Large Cuts
of China found in those two decades. This does not mean, however, that Britain
was not engaged with China nor that China did not feature in the daily news.
The Sino-French war (1883–1885), for example, was satirised in blurbs and even
made “the cut,” as in the Large Cut, in September 1883 where Madam France is
depicted receiving advice from John Bull that developing a taste for China was a
very expensive pursuit (Figure 1.7).
Other references to China during the 1870s and 1880s include satirical
attacks on British and Chinese merchants who traded and sold adulterated tea
to British consumers. While important, these issues in the following chapters
are not discussed if Punch did not ofer sufcient visual and textual material for
examination.
20 Introduction

FIGURE 1.7 “Chinamania” Punch, Vol. 85 (15 September 1883), p. 127.

Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Chapter 2 explores the idiosyncrasies of the editors and individual staf members
behind the magazine. The aim is to examine the intellectual and political under-
pinnings of Punch to ofer readers an in-depth understanding of the men who came
together to create this magazine. Chapter 3 investigates the magazine as a fnished
product. It discusses the layout, content, and tone with special attention given to
the Large Cut cartoon. Chapter 4 highlights the evolution of negative perceptions
 Introduction 21

towards China. Within British society, there was a whirlwind of socio-political

shifts and changes, circulation of new ideas and concepts, and introduction to for-
eign cultures and peoples. In soothing any potential fears, Punch provided guiding
principles of behaviour and appropriateness between diferent sectors of British
society. During the Great Exhibition of 1851, disruptions in social and racial hier-
archies gave rise to anxieties and Punch poked fun at social mixing between the
separate classes. At the same time, the magazine instilled a sense of identity and
belonging when confronted with foreignness and notions of “Chineseness” were
an ideal foil to ideas of “Britishness.” By the end of the Second Opium War, Punch
was clear in its anti-Chinese standpoint and created emotive cartoons to clearly
convey its sentiments to its readers. Chapter 5 examines heightened tensions and
anxieties with the sudden shift in geopolitics after the First Sino-Japanese war. This
afected not only Britain’s standing in China but also its position as an imperial
power on the international arena.
Throughout the chapters, I use the terms “Britain” rather than “England” as
well as “China” rather than “Manchu” or “Han” when I am referring to a cartoon
with allegorical fgures because they were created using “a conglomeration of value
judgements” to represent nations, which “the Victorians were so fond of apply-
ing to whole regions and countries.”80 This is, of course, an oversimplifcation;
the lion, for example, used to represent Britain makes no distinction, say, between
England and Scotland or England and Wales. The same applies to China repre-
sented as a dragon, which makes no attempt to recognise the Manchu ruling elite’s
ethnic diference with the majority Han population or the multitude of ethnic
minorities that lived in China. Regardless, Punch provides an interesting case study
in deciphering the socio-cultural tempo of daily life as well as Britain’s perpetu-
ally evolving global conjunctures. Punch occupied a central role in the evolution
of public thought and its caricatures of the Chinese form a useful counterpoint to
explore the complexities, contradictions, and multifaceted symbols of China in the
popular British imagination.

Notes
1 M. H. Spielmann, The History of “Punch” (London: Cassell & Company, Limited),
p. 111.
2 Dominic Williams, “Punch and the Pogroms: Eastern Atrocities in John Tenniel’s Polit-
ical Cartoons, 1876–1896” RACAR: Revue d’art Canadienne / Canadian Art Review,
Vol. 42, No. 1 (2017), p. 32.
3 Richard Scully and Andrekos Varnava, “Introduction: The Importance of Cartoons,
Caricature, and Satirical Art in Imperial Contexts” Comic Empires: Imperialism in Car-
toons, Caricature and Satirical Art (eds.) Richard Scully and Andrekos Varnava (Manches-
ter: Manchester University Press, 2019), p. 5.
4 J. P. May, “The Chinese in Britain, 1860–1914” Immigrants and Minorities in British Society
(ed.) Colin Holmes (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978), p. 111; Jefrey A. Auerback, The
Great Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1999), p. 186.
5 Sascha Auerbach, Race, Law, and “The Chinese Puzzle” in Imperial Britain (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), p. 6.
22 Introduction

6 Scully and Varnava, “Introduction” p. 6.

7 Kylie Message and Ewan Johnston, “The World Within the City: The Great Exhibition,
Race, Class and Social Reform” Britain, the Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition
of 1851 (eds.) Jefrey A. Auerback and Peter H. Hofenberg (Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2008), p. 29.
8 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), p. 3.
9 Said, Orientalism, pp. 26, 86.
10 Homi K. Bhabha, “The Other Question: Stereotype, Discrimination and the Discourse
of Colonialism” The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 66.
11 Bhabha, “The Other Question” pp. 67–70.
12 Virginia Richter, “Laughter and Aggression: Desire and Derision in a Postcolonial Con-
text” Cheeky Fictions (eds.) Susanne Reichl and Mark Stein (Amsterdam; New York:
Rodopi, 2005), p. 64.
13 Arif Dirlik, “Chinese History and the Question of Orientalism,” History and Theory,
Vol. 35, No. 4, Theme Issue 35: Chinese Historiography in Comparative Perspective
(December 1996), p. 99.
14 Cited in Scully and Varnava, “Introduction” p. 6.
15 Said, Orientalism, p. 325.
16 Simon J. Potter, “Communication and Integration: The British and Dominions Press
and the British World, c.1876–1914” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,
Vol. 31, No. 2 (2003), pp. 193–194.
17 Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, translated by Thomas
Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989),
pp. 193–194.
18 George Somes Layard, The Life and Letters of Charles Samuel Keene of “Punch” (London:
Sampson Low, Marston & Company, Limited, 1893), p. 51.
19 John Berger, Ways of Seeing (London: British Broadcasting Corporation in association
with Penguin Books, 1972), p. 33.
20 Victor S. Navasky, The Art of Controversy: Political Cartoons and Their Enduring Power
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013), pp. 35–36.
21 Layard, The Life and Letters of Charles Samuel Keene of “Punch,” p. 50.
22 Christopher Kent, “War Cartooned / Cartoon War: Matt Morgan and the American
Civil War in ‘Fun’ and ‘Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper’” Victorian Periodicals Review,
Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer 2003), p. 154.
23 Henry James, The Painter’s Eye, edited by John L. Sweeney (London: Rupert Hart-
Davis, 1956), p. 229.
24 Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, p. 194.
25 It was Punch artist John Leech who frst coined the term “cartoon” in the 1840s in refer-
ence to his satirical drawings for the magazine and the word later came to incorporate
all humorous drawings. Patrick Leary, The Punch Brotherhood: Table Talk and Print Culture
in Mid-Victorian London (London: The British Library, 2010), p. 35; “An Introduction”
PUNCH Magazine Cartoon Archive. Online: http://www.punch.co.uk/about/.
26 Diana Donald, The Age of Caricature: Satirical Prints in the Reign of George III (New Haven;
London: Yale University Press, 1996), pp. 15–19.
27 Peter Burke, Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (London: Reaktion
Books Limited, 2001), p. 141.
28 Donald, The Age of Caricature, p. 14.
29 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 205.
30 “ce qui rappelle instantanément, pleinement, c’est beaucoup moins ce qui est semblable
a l’objet lui-même, que ce qui est semblable a l’idée que nous avons de l’objet.” Transla-
tion and emphasis mine. Rodolphe Töpfer, De la plaque Daguerre: À propos des Excursions
daguerriennes (Cognac: Le temps qu’il fait, 2002), p. 61.
31 “quatre jambs fnes, une panse ample, une queue maigre et deux longues oreilles.” Trans-
lation mine. Töpfer, De la plaque Daguerre, pp. 61–62.
 Introduction 23

32 Navasky, The Art of Controversy, pp. 44–46.

33 Scully and Varnava, “Introduction” p. 6.
34 Cited in Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 189.
35 Scully and Varnava, “Introduction” p. 7.
36 William Murrell, A History of American Graphic Humor, Vol. 2 (New York, 1938), p. 46,
cited in Martha Banta, Barbaric Intercourse: Caricature and the Culture of Conduct, 1841–
1936 (Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), p. 4; also cited in
Navasky, The Art of Controversy, p. 43.
37 E. B. White, “Some Remarks on Humor” adapted from A Subtreasury of American
Humor, 1941, p. 244 cited in In the Words of E.B. White: Quotations from America’s Most
Companionable of Writers, edited by Martha White (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2011), p. 129.
38 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 463.
39 Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories (New York; London: Harper &
Brothers Publishers, 1922), p. 132.
40 Ronald Dworkin, “The Right to Ridicule”The New York Review of Books (23 March 2006).
Online: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/03/23/the-right-to-ridicule.
41 Scully and Varnava, “Introduction” pp. 9–10.
42 Walter Benjamin, Illuminations, translation by Harry Zohn (New York: Schocken, 1969),
p. 89, cited in David Spurr, The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel
Writing, and Imperial Administration (Durham; London: Duke University Press, 1993),
pp. 8–9.
43 Navasky, The Art of Controversy, p. 39.
44 Burke, Eyewitnessing, p. 14.
45 Rudolf G. Wagner, “China ‘Asleep’ and ‘Awakening’: A Study in Conceptualizing
Asymmetry and Coping with It” Transcultural Studies, No. 1 (2011), p. 9.
46 Donald, The Age of Caricature, p. 47.
47 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 206; Richard D. Altick, Punch: The Lively Youth of
a British Institution, 1841–1851 (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1997), pp. 138–139.
48 Robert Dingley and Richard Scully, “Courting the Colonies: Linley Sambourne, Punch,
and Imperial Allegory” Comic Empires: Imperialism in Cartoons, Caricature and Satirical Art
(eds.) Richard Scully and Andrekos Varnava (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2019), p. 31.
49 Wagner, “China ‘Asleep’ and ‘Awakening,’” p. 55.
50 Wagner, “China ‘Asleep’ and ‘Awakening,’” pp. 37–38, 56–57.
51 “The Disease of China” The North-China Herald (Shanghai) (10 August 1894), p. 219.
52 Scully and Varnava, “Introduction” p. 13.
53 Richard Scully, British Images of Germany: Admiration, Antagonism & Ambivalence, 1860–
1914 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012), p. 136; Henry Miller, “The Problem
with Punch” Institute of Historical Research, Vol. 82, No. 216 (May 2009), pp. 285–302.
54 To name just a few: Frank E. Huggett, Victorian England as Seen by Punch (London: Book
Club Associates, 1978), p. 7; Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 1; Banta, Barbaric Intercourse,
p. 2; Stanley Appelbaum and Richard Kelly (eds.), Great Drawings and Illustrations from
Punch, 1841–1901 (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1981), p. IX.
55 Apart for some interruptions, Punch was published for over 160 years.
56 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, pp. 1–2; Hans Harder, “Prologue: Late Nineteenth and
Twentieth Century Asian Punch Versions and Related Satirical Journals” Asian Punches,
A Transcultural Afair (eds.) Hans Harder and Barbara Mittler (Heidelberg: Springer,
2013), p. 1; “History of Punch” on PUNCH Magazine Cartoon Archive. Online: http://
www.punch.co.uk/about/.
57 Altick, Punch, pp. XVII–XX.
58 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 203.
59 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 19.
24 Introduction

60 The fgures for the years 1841, 1842, 1885 and 1905 are taken from Punch Magazine
Cartoon Archive, “About” on www.punch.co.uk/about/index. I have calculated the
total readers based on the fve to one ratio. The fgures for the years 1844 to 1854 are
cited in Altick, Punch, p. 38.
61 Altick, Punch, p. 39.
62 George Orwell, Burmese Days (London: Penguin in association with Martin Secker and
Warburg, 1989), p. 17. I am grateful to Paul Bevan for bringing this reference to my
attention.
63 Henry James, Partial Portraits (London; New York: Macmillan and Co., 1894), p. 333.
64 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 191–195.
65 Alexis Easley, Andrew King and John Morton, “Introduction” Researching the Nineteenth-
Century Periodical Press: Case Studies (eds.) Alexis Easley, Andrew King and John Morton
(London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018), E-books online at the British
Library, n.p.
66 Potter, “Communication and Integration” p. 191.
67 See Hans Harder, Asian Punches, A Transcultural Afair (eds.) Hans Harder and Barbara
Mittler (Heidelberg: Springer, 2013).
68 Scully and Varnava, “Introduction” p. 13.
69 To name just a few studies: on the Irish: Joseph P. Finnan, “Punch’s Portrayal of Red-
mond, Carson and the Irish Question, 1910–18” Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 33, No. 132
(November 2003), pp. 424–445; Peter Gray, “Punch and the Great Famine” History
Ireland, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1993), pp. 26–33; On Slavery in America: Michael A.
Chaney, “Heartfelt Thanks to Punch for the Picture: Frederick Douglass and the Trans-
national Jokework of Slave Caricature” American Literature, Vol. 82, No. 1 (March 2010),
pp. 57–90; Oscar Maurer, “ ‘Punch’ on Slavery and Civil War in America” Victorian
Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 1957), pp. 4–28; On Eastern Europeans: Katarzyna
Murawska-Muthesius, “On Small Nations and Bullied Children: Mr. Punch Draws
Eastern Europe” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (April 2006),
pp. 279–305; On the Pope: Eleanor McNees, “ ‘Punch’ and the Pope: Three Decades
of Anti-Catholic Caricature” Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Spring 2004),
pp. 18–45; On King Arthur: Roger Simpson, “King Arthur at the ‘Punch’ Round
Table, 1859–1914” Arthuriana, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Winter 1999), pp. 94–115.
70 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 2.
71 Richard Scully, “A Pettish Little Emperor” Drawing the Line: Using Cartoons as His-
torical Evidence (eds.) Richard Scully and Marian Quartly (Clayton, Victoria: Monash
University ePress, 2009). Online: http://books.publishing.monash.edu. (Accessed 11
May 2018); also in Richard Scully and Marian Quartly, “Using Cartoons as Historical
Evidence” Drawing the Line: Using Cartoons as Historical Evidence (eds.) Richard Scully
and Marian Quartly (Clayton, Victoria: Monash University ePress, 2009). Online:
http://books.publishing.monash.edu. (Accessed 11 May 2018).
72 Gregory Blue, “China and Western Social Thought in the Modern Period” China and
Historical Capitalism: Genealogies of Sinological Knowledge (eds.) Timothy Brook and Greg-
ory Blue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 75–78.
73 Julie F. Codell, “Introduction” Imperial Co-Histories: National Identities and the British and
Colonial Press (ed.) Julie F. Codell (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press;
London: Associated University Presses, 2003), p. 18.
74 Auerbach, Race, Law, and “The Chinese Puzzle” in Imperial Britain, pp. 4–8.
75 Walter Besant, East London (London: Chatto & Windus, 1901), pp. 205–206.
76 Elizabeth Hope Chang, Britain’s Chinese Eye (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press,
2010); Catherine Pagani, “Chinese Material Culture and British Perceptions of China in
the Mid-Nineteenth Century” Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material Culture and the
Museum (eds.) Tim Barringer and Tom Flynn (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 28–40;
Catherine Pagani, “Objects and the Press: Images of China in Nineteenth-Century
 Introduction 25

Britain” Imperial Co-Histories (ed.) Julie F. Codell (Madison, NJ; London: Fairleigh
Dickinson University Press, 2003), pp. 147–166.
77 Sarah Cheang, “Selling China: Class, Gender and Orientalism at the Department Store”
Journal of Design History, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 2007), pp. 1–16.
78 Besant, East London, p. 204.
79 Auerbach, Race, Law, and “The Chinese Puzzle” in Imperial Britain, p. 6.
80 L. Perry Curtis, Jr. Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature (Newton Abbot:
David & Charles, Ltd., 1971), p. 2.
2
“GENTLEMEN, THE CARTOON!”
The men behind the magazine

In July 1891, Punch artist Edward Linley Sambourne created an image of the men
behind the magazine toasting a statue of Mr. Punch at a Jubilee dinner. The staf
had reason to celebrate: in less than four years, the magazine became “the most
talked-about and enjoyed periodical of its time”1 and by the 1890s, many con-
sidered Punch an important Victorian institution. It all began on 17 July 1841,
when three writers, Mark Lemon, Henry Mayhew, and Stirling Coyne, along with
engraver Ebenezer Landells, and a printer, Joseph Last, decided to launch a new
satirical magazine called Punch; or The London Charivari. There are many stories
concerning how the magazine got its name; however, a popular re-telling is when
“someone” spoke of the paper as “a good mixture of punch, being nothing with-
out Lemon” to which Mayhew cried out “A capital idea! We’ll call it Punch!”2
Thereafter, “Mister Punch,” with his hunched back and hooked nose, was decided
upon as the representative and voice of the magazine. He was the cartoon version
of the popular and much-loved glove puppet that frst appeared in London as street
entertainment at the turn of the nineteenth century.
Mr. Punch’s original murderous and wife-beating temper amused both children
and adults but by mid-century, his temper was tamed and the stories of Mr. Punch
and his wife Judy had a moral message for children as domesticity and gender roles
became increasingly linked with notions of respectability.3 The decision to incor-
porate him as the magazine’s mascot was ingenious. Mr. Punch was a familiar and
much-loved folk icon and evoked fond memories of childhood, seaside resorts,
and happy holidays for many of the magazine’s readers.4 Lemon would later explain
the reason for the name of the magazine, “It was called Punch because it was short
and sweet. And Punch is an English institution. Everyone loves Punch, and will be
drawn aside to listen to it. All our ideas connected with Punch are happy ones.”5

DOI: 10.4324/9781003025573-2
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 27

FIGURE 2.1 “The Mahogany Tree” Punch, Vol. 101 (18 July 1891), pp. 31–32.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

With the launch of the magazine, a weekly Wednesday evening dinner was
established in order for members to enjoy a meal together and discuss the con-
tents of the week’s Large Cut cartoon while passing around brandy and cigars.
The call to attention was the editor’s announcement: “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”
(Figure 2.1), titled “The Mahogany Tree,” was in reference to the song that one
member, Horace Mayhew, was fond of singing at special Punch dinners.6 The
image captures a sense of camaraderie between the men, represented by the
pineapple prominently displayed at the centre of the table, the traditional symbol
of friendship and hospitality. What is glossed over in this picture-perfect repre-
sentation is the suppressed animosity between some members of staf as well as
the initial bumps at the start of the magazine’s career.
Despite the magazine’s early success, Punch soon found itself in a precarious posi-
tion due to mounting fnancial troubles and Last parted ways with the magazine.
To stave of mounting debts, Lemon and Mayhew approached William Bradbury
and Frederick Evans in December 1842 to persuade the businessmen to purchase
the magazine for little more than its debts. Bradbury and Evans had built a suc-
cessful printing frm based on the latest technology as well as expertise in woodcut
illustrations. With their support and business savvy, Punch editors and members of
staf were able to fully concentrate their energies on the creation of witty content
28 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

and attractive images.7 This change in ownership, however, was not without its
challenges.
The company re-organised the magazine from a collective system into a more
traditional hierarchal one and turned the small Punch staf into weekly, salaried
employees.8 Coyne was one of the frst to go as he was considered of little use as
co-editor or contributor and was found to have plagiarised a contribution from a
Dublin paper.9 Landells, a key player in the start-up of the magazine, was bought
out after much painful negotiations that dragged from April to December 1842
and left the engraver feeling indignant; he not only opposed the sale but also was
humiliated when he found out that he should not continue as engraver as he origi-
nally expected.10 Then in April 1846, Mayhew left the group in bitter resentment.
He, like Landells, was a founding member and was afronted when he was deposed
of his role as a co-editor.11 He accused Lemon of allowing himself “to be bought
over” and although his brother Horace “Ponny” Mayhew stayed on as a contribu-
tor, Henry never quite forgave Lemon.12
With Bradbury and Evans as proprietors, Lemon was the sole editor and left in
charge of the daily operations of the magazine. Despite the initial departures, few
members of staf left the magazine in its frst ten years13 and this very small circle
of men, described as “men in years but boys at heart,”14 formed a tight-knit com-
munity that remained predominantly unchanged. It is important to note that even
though the salaried staf of Punch consisted solely of white men, as they were the
only sex and race thought capable of active agency in “reading” and “represent-
ing” the world,15 the magazine did have female contributors.16 Their entries were
published anonymously in accordance with Punch’s policy for all writers, regardless
of gender, and this continues to pose a challenge for scholars researching contri-
butions from specifc individuals.17 While signifcant, the focus of this chapter is
on the salaried staf members. It investigates the attitudes, political leanings, and
friendships between the individual editors and staf members as well as the ways
in which their professional lives crossed with their social networks. The aim is to
explore the intellectual and political underpinnings of Punch and ofer an in-depth
understanding of the magazine’s creative and decision-making authority.

The editors

The men at the helm

In 1862, Henry Silver, one of the writers at Punch, remarked in his diary “Now
all works smoothly – the machinery is kept oiled by good feeling and good
humour – and long may the Foreman have health to see that all goes right.”18
Silver’s “Foreman” was Mark Lemon who was the sole editor until his death in
1870, followed by Shirley Brooks (1870–1874), Tom Taylor (1874–1880), and
Sir Frances Burnand (1880–1906). Each stamped his personality and political
leanings onto the general tone of the magazine, which made a signifcant difer-
ence in the direction and political complexion of Punch.
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 29

Lemon was essential in establishing the magazine’s success due to his vigilance in
ensuring that the content stayed away from scurrility and coincided with Victorian
notions and ideas of gentility. He was said to be particularly sensitive in “his respect
for religious prejudice and sentiment, except when discussing Roman Catholi-
cism and Jesuitry.”19 This attentiveness is highlighted by a joke that was played by
Punch staf members. The story tells of when Lemon went on holiday, he received
a copy of the magazine by post and was horrifed to discover “not the cartoon
they had agreed upon, but another, execrable in taste and vile in execution while
undoubted libels and other ofences were sprinkled with hideous liberality about
the pages.”20 Spielmann’s point in recording this tale is to underscore the sense of
fun and friendship between Lemon and Punch writers and artists; however, it also
highlights Lemon’s watchful eye over the appropriateness of the magazine’s humour
and his understanding of public decorum, which were key in ensuring Punch’s
continued success.
While Lemon became known for his wit, sense of humour, and afable person-
ality, he was also appreciated for his diplomacy in handling even the most domi-
nating personalities and for his intuition on “public feeling.”21 His understanding
of what should or should not appear in the magazine was invaluable; if in doubt,
Lemon exercised caution in taking a stance, preferring to wait, and see in which
direction public opinion would sway.22 His shrewd judgement kept him and Punch
from libel suits and likely accounted for his high salary that Bradbury and Evans
willingly paid. With the founding of Punch, Lemon received thirty shillings a week
but this increased substantially to ffteen hundred pounds a year by the time of his
death. The loss of Lemon dramatically shifted the tone of the magazine, which in
its frst years, adapted a stance that oscillated between radicalism and respectability
while seeking its readership from the conservative middle class.23 With Shirley
Brooks succeeding Lemon as an editor in 1870, Punch took on a more establish-
mentarian outlook as Brooks was an outspoken Tory.24
Brooks is said to have been “perhaps the most brilliant and useful all-round
man who ever wrote for Punch.”25 He began as a journalist and reported on Par-
liament for the Morning Chronicle and wrote for the comic journal The Man in the
Moon26 where he frequently targeted Punch. His wit and sense of humour were
so admired by Lemon and Douglas Jerrold, they asked him to join the staf and
in 1852, Brooks agreed. He subsequently became good friends with both Jerrold
and Lemon, as well as Francis Burnand and George Du Maurier, two increasingly
important members of staf from the 1860s.27
Brooks was a “man of letters” with a sharp tongue and a sharper mind and
working alongside Lemon, who was a “man of the world,” the two complemented
each other.28 This did not mean, however, that Brooks shied away from society;
indeed, he was a member of the Garrick Club’s governing committee, a much
sought-after position that symbolised one’s status in English literary and intel-
lectual life.29 Among his colleagues at Punch, he was the only member familiar
with the dynamic and competitive atmosphere of Parliamentary politics and wrote
the popular weekly column “Essence of Parliament.” He also became the cartoon
30 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

suggestor-in-chief, working closely with the artist John Tenniel on the weekly
Large Cuts.30 Brooks was successful in having nine out of every ten of his sugges-
tions accepted, an important feat as the Large Cuts were the most important and
infuential political cartoon that featured in the magazine.31
While his editorship was considered a success, Brooks’ aggressive and domi-
nating personality put an end to the democratic process.32 He was a forceful and
assertive Tory and Lemon expressed concern that Brooks’ political leanings might
damage Punch; Brooks frequently edited his own work, as well as others, to coin-
cide with his beliefs. Patrick Leary describes Brooks as follows:

He distrusted most members of the working class on principle, applauded

the imperialistic gusto of Palmerston (a “true Englishman”), disapproved of
Catholics (especially Irish ones), was outraged by the disestablishment of the
Irish Church in 1869 (although utterly without religious feeling himself), felt a
refexive suspicion of Jews, [and] thought the dark races irremediably inferior.33

Despite Brooks’ eforts to infuence a change in the magazine’s tone and character
from radicalism to conservatism, he was met with opposition. Ponny Mayhew
resentfully accused “Punch of turning Tory”34 and complained that the magazine
“is standing still – used to take the lead, but now fears to do so.” Evans responded
that “the times are altered, my dear Ponny, and Punch alters with the times.”35
Although Mayhew protested how “he [was] in a minority” in attempting to equili-
brate the discourse, his dissenting voice was important. He was a long-term and
respected member of the Punch group and his outlook no doubt would have had
an impact.36
Punch was also a business. While the political leanings of the editors were sig-
nifcant in infuencing the magazine, fnancial reasons dictated that the tone and
content would coincide, or at least not severely ofend, the interests and opinions
of their majority readers, which was the conservative middle class. As has been
observed, “Moulding opinion seemed a straightforward business – except when
one was actually sitting in an editorial chair.”37 Brooks’ editorship came to an end
with his death in 1874 and the position was taken by the polymath Tom Taylor, a
Punch member of staf for thirty-six years, six of which were spent as editor. Spiel-
mann characterised Taylor’s infuence on the magazine as “decidedly Radical” as
well as “anti-Imperial”38 but it was during his editorship that the magazine declined
in popularity.
Taylor was well liked as a person and appreciated for always encouraging and
helping others; however, his humour was considered too academic in nature.39
Outside his Punch duties, Taylor’s impressive career included posts as Professor of
English Literature (1845) and Secretary to the Board of Health (1854–1871); he
was also a barrister, an active member of the Wandsworth Liberal Club, the author
of over seventy plays, a passionate art critic but although a Liberal in politics, he
regarded the sufrage movement with suspicion.40 When he died in 1880, the Punch
editorial torch was passed to Francis Burnand.
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 31

Burnand was already a known humourist when he was invited to the Punch
Table in 1863, among some consternation over his style of “nonsense” humour.41
Burnand became “the most prolifc punster of the age” but even he had his
patience tried when one eager contributor exhausted his patience and Burnand
eventually wrote to the hopeful person, “For goodness’ sake, send no more puns!”42
Nevertheless, his editorship successfully re-established Punch’s reputation as a fun
and jovial magazine. Burnand claimed to have “no political sympathies or antipa-
thies whatever”43 and this apparent political neutrality changed Punch’s tone as the
magazine refected “tolerance, political and religious, and wider sympathy than had
lately been the case.”44
Perhaps it was Burnand’s conversion to Catholicism in 1858, much to his
father’s horror,45 that enabled him to be tolerant of difering religious convictions
and this, in turn, infuenced the tone of the magazine. A.A. Milne considered
Punch under Burnand “less intolerant of opinions with which it disagreed.”46
Burnand’s editorship is often compared to the early years when Punch took an
anti-Catholic stance during the “Papal Aggression” campaign of 1850, a position
that led to the resignation of artist Richard Doyle.47 How accurate were claims of
Burnand’s political neutrality? While he may have instilled more religious toler-
ance, the magazine he presided over had notable nationalist sentiments. Spiel-
mann reports that Burnand was “born in 1837 – having been too gallant, it was
said, to come into the world before his Queen had ascended the throne, and
too loyal and zealous to delay his appearance after she had taken her place.”48
Burnand’s loyalty is recorded in his own diary when he registered his afront at
the satirical magazine The Tomahawk’s illustration of an empty chair depicting a
vacant throne, a comment on an absent Queen Victoria as she mourned over the
death of Prince Albert.
Burnand denounced the cartoon as “an unprovoked attack, and conceived in
the worst possible taste,” stating that Victoria “had not yet felt herself equal to
appearing once again among her people and brightening London with her gra-
cious presence.”49 His loyalty to Queen must have extended to country as the
following chapters will reveal that there were more politically charged Large Cut
cartoons of China during Burnand’s editorship than at any earlier period in Punch.
The role of the editor was signifcant, especially when making fnal decisions on
the important and infuential Large Cuts. Despite Brooks domineering personal-
ity, whether his suggestion was accepted “rested with Mark Lemon and the rest of
Mr. Punch’s Cabinet Council”50 but by the time he became editor, he ensured his
own political leanings set the tone of the magazine. Yet throughout the Victorian
period, Punch experienced shifts and changes not only in editors but also in writers
and artists. The members consisted of a varied mix of wit and strong personalities
resulting in a group defned by friendships and merry-making as well as friction
and disagreements. The following section will examine some of the writers of the
magazine and explore this mix of personalities, their relationships with each other
along with the personal animosities and political clashes of opinion that occurred
behind the scenes.
32 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

The authors

The witty writers

In 1866, when Lemon declared, “we have never had a serious dispute,” he deliber-
ately ignored a number of conficts in the early years of the magazine, some seri-
ous enough to have resulted in sudden departures.51 Spielmann also downplayed
contentions among staf when he declaredthe occasional diferences of opinion,
and the harder knocks of wit, and sometimes, even, the still sharper encounters of
temper, were all glossed over. As Thackeray remarked, “What is the use of quarrel-
ling with a man if you have to meet him every Wednesday at dinner?”52
Yet despite these assertions, there were disputes among the members. Henry Sil-
ver’s diary records the early years when “endless squabbles arose” due to “every
writer fnding fault with every article inserted in preference to his own.”53 Even
the title of the magazine was objected to when Landells announced “Well, boys,
the title for the new work is to be Punch,” the declaration was met with complaints
that it “was a very stupid one.”54
With the constant bickering among staf members, Lemon played an impor-
tant role in maintaining peace. Although consistently afable, he kept a sharp and
watchful eye on conversations and was quick to dispel potential fare-ups.55 A good
example arose when someone brought up the name Edmund Yates with William
Thackeray in the room after the heated Garrick Club Afair, in which Yates pub-
licly attacked Thackeray’s writing. Burnand records in his diary how Lemon imme-
diately tried to turn the conversation and “attempted to throw oil on the troubled
waters, which would have been efective had they been only waters. But, as it was,
he threw the oil on smouldering fre, and – phew! – what a blaze!!”56 Thackeray
lost his temper and left early that evening.
Other outbursts had more severe repercussions for the magazine. One such
incident involved the young artist Richard or “Dicky” Doyle who was not yet out
of his teenage years when he began working for Punch. Doyle was a devout Irish
Catholic and in 1850, he quit abruptly when the magazine launched an attack on
the Pope and the doctrines of his faith. Thackeray had taken Doyle under his pro-
tective wing and was disappointed at his sudden departure.57 In March 1851, “John
Bull Beaten” expressed his dismay at Doyle’s resignation while simultaneously
blaming Douglas Jerrold, who felt strongly against any suggestions of a reinstate-
ment of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, for Punch’s persistent attack and
intolerance of Roman Catholics.58
There were also hints of anti-Irish sentiments directed at Coyne. Lemon referred
contemptuously to him as “Paddy” and Jerrold commented rather harshly on his
appearance, “Stirling Coyne? I call him Filthy Lucre!” Leech, Thackeray, and Gilbert
à Beckett were anti-Semitics and Leech had a “hearty prejudice” against “Irish-
men and Frenchmen.”59 Difering beliefs and “hearty prejudices” were a constant
source of tension during the magazine’s early years. Punch was stafed with strong
personalities, men-about-town with many holding memberships in literary groups,
gentlemen’s clubs, political parties, and a variety of other social engagements.60
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 33

Of all the regular members, most belonged to the lower levels of the middle class
with the exception of Thackeray who came from a wealthy Anglo-Indian family.61
Each brought with them their own set of notions and opinions as well as their own
vision on the direction the magazine should take and while there were certainly
disagreements, there were also friendships that formed.
Ponny found a friend and ally in Jerrold as they were both radical in political
opinions and the two were instrumental in shaping Punch’s early years when the
magazine was radical in outlook. It was during this time that the magazine was said
to have exhibited “more democratic outspokenness, more middle-class downright-
ness, and less of the Constitutional Club and drawing-room element” as the later
years.62 Certainly by the time Brooks became editor, there were no writers left that
had the energy or intellectual capacity to challenge him and thus, under his infu-
ence, the politics of Punch shifted.63 Burnand, who joined Punch in 1863, remem-
bers Ponny as “comparatively silent” during political debates except when goaded
by Brooks to give his opinion as a “professing Red Republican.”64 However, in the
beginning before Brooks, it was Jerrold who dominated with his “admixture of
Radicalism and his Whiggery.”65
Jerrold took the opportunity to use Punch as a platform to express his opin-
ions on subjects he felt strongly, such as the hypocrisy of the privileged and
the sufering of the poor.66 Nicknamed “the little wasp” because of his stinging
attacks and sharp sense of humour, Jerrold’s strong opinions, impatience, and
intolerance frequently clashed with some of the other members. Thackeray was

FIGURE 2.2 “Authors’ Miseries. No. VI.” Punch, Vol. 15 (4 November 1848), p. 198.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
34 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

Jerrold’s strongest opponent; while sympathetic to radical politics in his youth,

Thackeray became increasingly conservative as he got older and more successful
and had little patience for Jerrold’s contempt for authority.67 Jerrold, for his part,
considered Thackeray a snob and “viewed his entrance into Society – against
which Jerrold had for years been hurling his bitterest darts – with very grave
suspicion.”68
The men once sat next to one another at the weekly dinners but “there was as
little love as space between them” and after his worldwide success with Vanity Fair,
Thackeray resigned although he continued to maintain contact with the Punch men
and occasionally joined them for the weekly dinner.69 Although much has been
made of the rivalry between Thackeray and Jerrold, theirs was a complex relation-
ship that mixed animosity as well as support for each other.
On one occasion, Thackeray came especially into London from his lectur-
ing tour to support Jerrold’s election at the Reform Club. Thackeray was said to
have exclaimed with delight, “We’ve got the little man in!” when the results were
known. As he was an artist as well as writer for Punch, he once depicted himself
next to Jerrold listening to passengers decrying the magazine (Figure 2.2).70
Another early departure due to a personality class with Jerrold was Albert Smith.
Smith was a good friend of John Leech and Percival Leigh, a friendship that began
when all three were young medical students at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Smith
was outgoing and informal and some attributed this to a “vulgar and bumptious”
personality who “never neglected an opportunity for self-advertisement.”71 Both
Thackeray and Jerrold disliked him intensely but only Jerrold showed his aversion
to Smith directly and some accounts give Jerrold’s relentless hostility as the reason
for Smith’s eventual resignation in 1843. Others claim that Smith’s habit of showing
Punch proofs to all at the Cheshire Cheese public house incurred Lemon’s wrath
that led to his dismissal. Regardless, Smith himself was both hurt and ignorant as to
the reason for his alienation from the Punch group although this estrangement came
to an end when he made a name for himself as an entertainer in his enormously
popular “Mont Blanc” shows.72
By the end of the 1840s, Jerrold’s radicalism was tempered within the pages of
the magazine. Writing to his good friend Charles Dickens, Jerrold complained at
the changing politics of the magazine,

I do not very cordially agree with [Punch’s] new spirit. I am convinced that
the world will get tired (at least I hope so) of this eternal gufaw at all things.
After all, life has something serious in it. It cannot be all a comic history of
humanity . . . . When, moreover, the change comes, unless Punch goes a little
back to his occasional gravities, he’ll be sure to sufer.73

In 1857, Jerrold was on his deathbed. The day before he died, he remembered his
old friends and foes at Punch and sent a message to the Table through Ponny: “Tell
the dear boys that if I’ve ever wounded any of them, I’ve always loved them.”74
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 35

Years later in 1895, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine remembered Jerrold as “Punch’s

evil genius” whose contributions, though brilliant, was “all tinctured with a ranco-
rous and septic malignity.”75
After Jerrold passed away, his memory continued to come up in conversa-
tion among the members, although the recollections were not always with fond-
ness. Thackeray found an ally in Leech for they both shared a distaste for Jerrold
and took turns verbally abusing the man while Lemon did his best to defend his
deceased friend. Lemon determined that Thackeray’s dislike for Jerrold was based
on class prejudice, coinciding with Jerrold’s accusations of snobbery. Silver records
in his diary that Thackeray “said that DJ ate his peas with his knife and therefore
was not ft company for him.”76
Charterhouse-educated Silver was hired to replace Jerrold. A bashful and
most obscure member, his greatest contribution to the legacy of Punch is his
invaluable diary, which spans a twelve-year period from 1858 to 1870. Sil-
ver recorded conversations and tensions from the weekly dinners, which has
allowed an intimate glimpse into the private space in which members of staff
met, deliberated, discussed, and joked. Other contributors included Percival
“the Professor” Leigh, “the mildest-mannered man that ever cut a throat –
in argument.”77 He was good friends with Leech and Smith when the three
were medical students and for decades, he provided the magazine with steady
albeit unremarkable contributions. Leigh was a serious intellectual and after
the death of his wife in 1847, he lived a quiet and eccentric lifestyle, enjoying
his weekly dinners with the Punch men and they, in turn, enjoyed his story-
telling at the Table.78 Burnand remembers him fondly as “the dearest, kindest
old boy, and a thorough gentleman in the truest and widest sense.”79 Leigh was
so well liked that when his contributions became entirely useless, they would
be re-written in order for them to appear in Punch, much to the old Profes-
sor’s delight. Over time, however, his text could simply not be re-worked for
publication but regardless, Leigh received an increase in salary to maintain him
in old age.80
One of the frst writers to join the magazine was Gilbert Abbott à Beckett, a
shy and sagacious barrister who was also a Poor Law Commissioner and police
magistrate.81 He was an experienced editor and writer for the comic paper Figaro
in London in the early 1830s before becoming Punch’s most reliable and prolifc
contributor, writing “regularly without a week’s break until the day of his death,
August 30, 1856.”82 Much like Burnand, à Beckett was said to be neutral in his
political leanings; however, he sided with Thackeray in strongly recommending
a heroic cartoon to welcome Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte’s visit to Victoria and
Albert in 1855. Both à Beckett and Thackeray believed that an alliance with France
would best serve the interest of the British Empire but opposition at the Table was
in favour of making a joke of this surprising visit. In the end, a compromise was
reached and Bonaparte appeared in Punch ringing a visitor’s bell of Buckingham
Palace (Figure 2.3).83
36 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

FIGURE 2.3 “Who would have thought it?” Punch, Vol. 28 (21 April 1855), p. 155.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 37

Arthur à Beckett, Gilbert’s son, also worked for Punch and was “credited with
Tory bias.”84 Refecting on his father’s time at the magazine in its early years,
Arthur categorised members of staf politically,

Jerrold represented the extreme left, and Thackeray the most pronounced right.
Mark Lemon – the best of editors – was neutral, with a tendency to Radical-
ism. My father, especially after he had been appointed a Metropolitan Police
Magistrate, was also neutral, with a tendency to follow the policy of the Times.85

Arthur was correct in his placement of Jerrold and Thackeray in binary political
opposition; Thackeray’s conservatism was a constant antagonist to Jerrold’s radi-
calism. Even Jerrold’s perspective on Queen Victoria must have provoked Thack-
eray and others at the Table as Jerrold was one of her unequivocal and outspoken
critics.86 By the 1850s, however, the infuence of Thackeray and his allies at Punch
tempered Jerrold’s radicalism and thus within only a decade of its founding, the
political makeup of the magazine experienced a notable shift.
Edwin Milliken joined the Table in early 1877 after two years of being a regular
contributor to Punch. His writings impressed Taylor, the editor at the time, who
once asked him for a guarantee of the originality of his work. Spielmann describes
Milliken’s politics as “Radical” and he became known for his many verses devoted
to honouring recently deceased and distinguished men, such as John Bright and
Lord Tennyson, with much “generous sympathy.” When public interest in China

FIGURE 2.4 “The British Lion’s Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger” Punch, Vol. 33 (22
August 1857), pp. 76–77.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
38 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

increased during the closing years of the nineteenth century, Milliken was respon-
sible for many of the verses and text that accompanied the cartoons representing
foreign relations as well as the change in tone and attitude towards China and
Japan. His literary post positioned Milliken as “the big drum . . . of the political
orchestra.”87 The combination of his writings and the highly charged emotive
cartoons worked together to reveal a heightened conscientiousness into Britain’s
intent on maintaining political and economic strength among imperial rivals.

The artists

Clever creativity
After Doyle’s abrupt departure in 1850, Lemon found himself in a difcult position.
He was in desperate need of an artist to illustrate the Pocket-book and Almanac
that was due to come out. On the initiation of Jerrold, Lemon approached John
Tenniel, who was initially indignant at being asked to join the magazine as a satiri-
cal artist. Tenniel was a classically trained painter and illustrator and he considered
himself a true artist, above the “fooling” of cartoons. He asked a friend of his, “Do
they suppose . . . that there is anything funny about me?”88 He did ultimately join as
a staf member and became good friends with John Leech during their time work-
ing together. In time, Tenniel eventually took over the Large Cuts from Leech who
made known that he “detests big cutting” and in 1862, Tenniel became the chief
(and most prolifc) political artist and continued in this role for nearly forty years.89
In 1893, Tenniel became the frst artist knighted for his work done mostly in black
and white and eight years later, two hundred of Britain’s most prominent men gathered
in his honour to celebrate his retirement at the luxurious Hôtel Métropole in the West
End. Tenniel claimed to care little for politics, “As for political opinions, I have none; at
least, if I have my own little politics, I keep them to myself, and profess only those of my
paper.”90 This lack of interest in politics is repeated by many of the Punch men, an odd
assertion for those creating weekly political commentaries. In Tenniel’s case, he was the
most revered political cartoonist in the late nineteenth century, visually commenting on
contentious political issues and it was his work that crystalised national and imperialist
sentiments into easily comprehensible and attractive illustrations.
From 1841 to 1894, there were a total of 2,750 cartoons and Tenniel was the most pro-
lifc artist during this period, as demonstrated in the artist contribution table (Table 2.1).

TABLE 2.1 Punch Artist Contributions91

Sir John Tenniel 1,860

John Leech 720
Richard Doyle 70
Other Cartoonists 100
2,750
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 39

Contrary to his statement of political neutrality, Tenniel’s most powerful car-

toons dealt directly with politics. For example, his 1857 “The British Lion’s
Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger” (Figure 2.4) is said to have efectively capture the
nation’s indignation over the rebellion of native Indian troops and the subsequent
massacre at Cawnpore. A few months later, the Illustrated London News declared that
“Mr. Tenniel’s reputation stands too high to need eulogy, and the noble engraving
which he supplied to Punch a few months ago, depicting the ‘British Lion’s Venge-
ance,’ is in every household.”92
Tenniel used dehumanising characteristics and grotesque distortions to mock
anyone threatening social norms and hierarchies or British (specifcally English)
power and position at home and abroad. His cartoons appealed to a certain seg-
ment of Victorian society, namely, the conservative middle class, and Tenniel’s
intention was to trigger a chuckle, if only occasionally, at the expense of members
of the lower classes and other suspects challenging the status quo. He complained
that some people declared him too severe or dignifed to be funny, but, he says, his
“drawings are sometimes grotesque, but that is from a sense of fun and humour”
and that he believed himself to have “a very keen sense of humour, and that [his]
drawings are sometimes really funny!”93
Before Tenniel was chief cartoonist, that position was occupied by one of
Thackeray’s long-time friends and allies at Punch, the artist John Leech. Leech was a
handsome and quiet individual who shared Thackeray’s dislike of Jerrold but while
Jerrold’s powerful writing skills set the tone of the magazine, it was Leech who frst
defned the look with his highly popular illustrations. Thackeray once compared
the two men, stating that Jerrold “looked up at the rich and great with a ferce, a
sarcastic aspect, and a threatening posture” while Leech “surveys society from the
gentleman’s point of view.”94 Fellow artist George Du Maurier went further in
describing Leech, stating,

He was John Bull himself, but John Bull refned and civilized – John Bull
polite, modest, gentle, full of self-respect and self-restraint; and with all the
bully softened out of him; manly frst and gentlemanly after, but very soon
after; more at home perhaps in the club, the drawing-room, and the hunting-
feld, in Piccadilly and the Park, than in the farm or shop or market-place; a
normal Englishman of the upper middle class.95

Leech delighted in a simple life; he loved children and horses and once proclaimed
that his “tastes are very simple. Give me a good day’s hunting, and some claret after
it – nothing can be simpler, and I’m really quite contented.”96
Leech sufered from bouts of melancholy and detested noise, enjoying nothing
more than spending time in a quiet English seaside. He held a vehement hatred
towards street musicians, in particular Italian organ grinders. Burnand remembers
Leech thanking him for writing an article against street noises and Leech himself,
as early as 1843, began his campaign against them in Punch.97 In 1864, he died
from angina pectoris;98 Spielmann attributes the efects that noise emanating from
Leech’s despised organ grinders had on his serious heart condition and nervous
40 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

afiction by “grinding his overworked nerves” until they “literally play[ed] him
into his grave.”99
Although Silver and Burnand recorded that normally, Leech showed no interest
in politics and cared not to engage with political debates and conversation, he was
a Tory who openly “sneer[ed] at the Working Man.”100 He also openly despised
foreigners; so much so, that when Du Maurier was introduced to Leech for the
frst time, he was anxious that he would be mistaken as a foreigner on account of
his name and went “out of [his] way to assure [Leech] that [he] was rather more
English than John Bull himself.”101 These prejudices were dismissed by Thack-
eray, who commented, “These are lamentable prejudices, indeed; but what man is
without his own?”102 This indulgence towards Leech was maintained by the editors
and proprietors of the magazine. When Leech angrily left the room on one occa-
sion, Lemon commented that the artist had “always been a spoilt child.”103 The
signifcance of Leech’s contribution was so much so that Thackeray once claimed,
“Leech was Punch” to which great ofence was taken as his statement suggested the
redundancy of the writers.104 Despite provoking the ire of the writers, Thackeray
was right to note Leech’s importance for his cartoons were enormously popular
with the public.105 When he died, his illustrations continued to be admired and val-
ued. An auction of his work at Christie’s in April 1865 to raise money for Leech’s
widow and children generated £7,000 with buyers including William Gladstone.106
Du Maurier was brought to the Table after Leech’s death. He was born in Paris
and studied for a scientifc career in chemistry, for which he was called a “shock-
ing bad chemist.” He was, however, a very talented artist but had little hopes for
success as he was blind in one eye from a laboratory accident.107 Silver remembered
Du Maurier’s introduction to the Punch staf when he made everyone uncomfort-
able by referring to his blindness.108 Over time, Du Maurier became known and
appreciated for his illustrations mocking society, manners, and etiquettes. This did
not mean that he refrained from joining society, rather, his chronicles stemmed
from his observations. Walter Besant persuaded Du Maurier to join the Rabelais
Club which held literary dinners with its high-profle members including Thomas
Hardy, Bret Harte, and Henry James.109
James noted that although Du Maurier was a great lover and illustrator of beauty,
he also had “an artistic aesthetic need to make ugly people as ugly as they are” as he
“fnds a real entertainment in the completeness, in the perfection, of certain forms
of facial queerness.”110 What was strange to Du Maurier was depicted as grotesques
and fantastical fgures, he had a “peculiar perception of the look of breeding, of
race”111 and was especially fond of ridiculing the awkward or out-of-place. For the
men working at Punch, it was the lower classes, the Irish, the Jews, and anything –
or anyone foreign that represented those who did not belong.112
Du Maurier also took a keen interest in theories of race and hereditary113 and
engaged with discourses of degeneration, targeting elements believed to contrib-
ute to the decline of the human, specifcally the British, race such as disruptions
of established class, racial, and gender hierarchies. From 1874 to 1882, Du Mau-
rier created a series of cartoons in Punch lampooning participants of the New
Aesthetic movement. These underscored ideas of degeneracy in morals as well as
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 41

FIGURE 2.5 “Ye Aesthetic Young Geniuses” Punch, Vol. 75 (21 September 1878),
p. 122.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

physiognomy through his depictions of lacklustre and efeminate men (e.g. Fig-
ure 2.5). He would later explore these concepts in further detail in his successful
novel Trilby, where he created the infamous fgure of Svengali to represent racial
degeneracy through “Jewishness.”114
During the Punch dinners, Du Maurier sat next to his friend and fellow artist
Charles Keene, who was a regular contributor for nine years before being invited
to the Table in 1860. James describes Keene as being “English” and by way of
explanation, he asserts that “half his jokes are against Scotchmen.”115 Keene was
also extremely shy, detesting public appearances, and even among his colleagues
at Punch, he was not a great conversationalist. He was known to puf silently on
42 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

his pipe, listening to the discussion surrounding him and from time to time, softly
chuckle to himself. Burnand declared Keene a great storyteller and “simply inimi-
table” when he was in the mood to explain his quiet mirth remembering occa-
sions when the Punch men “cried with laughing” at one of his jokes.116 Keene
proposed very little and did not participate in suggestions for political cartoons; he
only gave his opinion when asked and was apt to be negative or discouraging on
projects under discussion. When pressed, Keene would likely pass criticism such as
“D- – -d bad” before settling back into silence with his pipe.117 Although he did
not participate in proposing themes for the popular political cartoons, Keene was
a self-proclaimed “hot Tory” who felt “so strongly antipathetic” towards Liberal
tendencies that he kept his distance from Punch members whose political leanings
he determined were too radical.118
Another artist, Edward Linley Sambourne, was invited to take a seat at the
Table in 1871 although he was a regular contributor for years beforehand. His
frst drawing made its appearance on 27 April 1867 and was a decorated initial let-
ter “T”; after which, Sambourne’s works consisted primarily of initial letters and
vignettes.119 This changed over time when he was asked to provide a great variety
of illustrations. However, he found the task of cartooning for the magazine daunt-
ing; in little over thirty-six hours following the weekly Wednesday dinners, the

FIGURE 2.6 “East and West” Punch, Vol. 119 (10 October 1900), p. 257.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 43

artists at Punch were expected to complete their artwork on Friday for submission
to the engravers.120
Sambourne was particular about the accuracy of his depictions and in
order to achieve his desired results, he needed both time and models to cre-
ate his illustrations. In order to achieve this, Sambourne made extensive use
of photographs, purchasing images from specialist dealers in shops around
London as well as engaging his extended family and household staff in both
taking and posing for photographs. 121 Unlike his contemporaries, he had
little artistic training but he was viewed as a promising artist and was hired
to assist Punch’s senior draughtsmen, Tenniel, Du Maurier, and Keene. 122
Sambourne was attuned to the magazine’s hierarchy and most of the politi-
cal subjects for his weekly cartoons were left for other members of staff
to decide. 123 His diary is replete with notations on the subject of the cut
assigned to him; for example, on Wednesday, 3 October 1900, Sambourne
specified he “Got cut of German Emperor & China” to which he spent most
of the following day completing the task with photographic assistance (see
Figure 2.6). 124
While Sambourne’s need to accurately depict his subjects was of paramount
concern, his colleague at Punch, Harry Furniss, lamented the ways in which the
“wings of the caricaturist have been clipped.” In 1894, he wrote:

We don’t caricature nowadays as the old caricaturists did; if we did, I don’t

know what pains and penalties we should court. Caricaturing in the savage,
bitter sense has been killed more or less by the development of art . . . John
Leech, as an unknown man, would not now get one of his drawings accepted
by an editor. No one admires John Leech more than I do, and in the sense
of humour and caricature, his work was perfect. But since Leech things have
altered very much.125

Furniss, identifed as a caricaturist of the previous generation when the works of

James Gillray and Thomas Rowlandson dominated the satirical scene. To him, his
co-artists at the magazine, such as Leech, Tenniel, and Sambourne, ushered in a
sanitisation of caricatures for which he wholeheartedly disagreed.
Furniss complained,an honest satirist has no chance nowadays. He must not
draw what he sees, or write what he really thinks about it. Pleasing wishy-washi-
ness is idolised, whilst Hogarth is voted coarse. Great Scott! How this age of ciga-
rettes and lemon squash would have stirred the pulse and nerved the brush of the
greatest of English caricaturists!126
Some of his caricatures did indeed cause ofence; Spielmann notes, “wives
would at times protest against the caricatures of husbands’ fgures, clothes, or faces”
and Furniss’s old classmate George Bernard Shaw wrote his “repulsive and unsym-
pathetic caricatures of working-class humanity” overstepped “the line between
ridicule and insult.”127 Furniss was born in Ireland to a Yorkshire father and Scot-
tish mother and although he spent the frst nineteen years of his life in Ireland, he
44 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

downplayed this association. He was staunchly Unionist, emphatically anglophile,

somewhat abrasive, and frmly against the women sufrage movement.128
Bernard Partridge joined the Punch Table in 1892, although his frst artistic
contribution to the magazine was the previous year. He was the son of a teacher of
anatomy at the Royal Academy Schools and was known for his love of the stage.
His art was much admired by Du Maurier, as both he and Partridge shared an
appreciation of all that is beautiful.129 Henry James claimed, “There is nothing, or
almost nothing, of the horrible in Punch” and that English life is portrayed in the
magazine through “several very wholesome tastes: the love of the country, the love
of action, the love of a harmless joke within the limits of due reverence, the love of
sport, of horses and dogs, of family life, of children, of horticulture.”130 This sanita-
tion of humour must have annoyed the ofensive-seeking Furniss.
The divergent personalities and outlooks among the Punch men resulted in
an eclectic mix of social and political opinions and attitudes. Friendships formed
and animosities simmered during the famous Wednesday dinners and yet at the
end of every week, the oppositional perspectives managed to come together in
order to create visual and textual commentaries for the magazine. The ability
of several men of strong political persuasions and outlooks putting aside their
clashes of opinion in order to produce a weekly political paper was essential for
Punch to survive. Richard Altick explains that what is miraculous is that “an
oddly assorted group of talented men managed to suppress whatever personal
antipathies and frictions existed among them . . . in the interests of turning out,
each week, a paper with a pronounced and distinctive favour.”131 Editors played
a key role in infuencing the tone and character of the magazine, as discourses
were re-oriented to suit their own political leanings. What remained consistent,
however, was the sanitised humour that appealed to bourgeois sensibilities as
well as Punch’s sense of nationalism and imperialism, all of which found expres-
sion in the text and visuals that will be discussed in more detail in the following
sections.

Notes
1 Altick, Punch, p. XVII.
2 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 24.
3 Mr. Punch was a marionette in the eighteenth century and then transformed into a
glove puppet at the opening of the nineteenth century. It was at this time that Mr. Punch
became violent, which difered from the previous entertainment. Rosalind Crone,
“Mr. and Mrs. Punch in Nineteenth-Century England” The Historical Journal, Vol. 49,
No. 4 (December 2006), pp. 1055–1082; Alan Reeve and Martin Reeve, “Punch and
Judy at the Beach and in the Mall” Visual Culture in Britain, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2011), p. 17.
A showman complains that when he performs Punch and Judy shows for “sentimental
folk,” he must “leave out all comic words and business” as they will “have no ghost,
no cofn, and no devil.” Recorded in Henry Mayhew, London Labour & the London
Poor, edited by Robert Douglas-Fairhurst (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010),
pp. 240–241.
4 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 13.
5 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 24–25.
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 45

6 Patrick Leary notes that “tree” was early Victorian slang for “table” although he states
that he has been unable to fnd evidence to support this notion repeated by scholars.
This reference is also made by Altick, Punch, footnote on p. 41, in which he states that
“ ‘Tree’ was a colloquial word for dining table.” For the call to attention, see “About”
Punch Magazine Cartoon Archive. Online: https://www.punch.co.uk/about/index; for
the caption, see Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 18, footnote.
7 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 13.
8 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, pp. 149–150.
9 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 272.
10 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 33–35.
11 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, for a discussion on Coyne, see p. 18; Mayhew’s depar-
ture, see pp. 19–21; for Landells’ negotiation process with Bradbury and Evans, see
pp. 140–144.
12 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 257.
13 Altick, Punch, p. 42.
14 Athol Mayhew, A Jorum of “Punch,” (London: Downey & Co., 1895), p. 109.
15 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, p. 23.
16 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 392.
17 Spielmann notes that in the United Kingdom, it was standard practice in journals and
periodicals that contributors sending in jokes seek “neither pay nor recognition.” See
Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 139.
18 Henry Silver, 23 July 1862, Henry Silver Diary, Punch Archive, British Library.
19 George Somes Layard, Shirley Brooks of “Punch,” His Life, Letters and Diaries (New York:
H. Holt and Company, 1907), p. 117.
20 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 266.
21 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 263.
22 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 51.
23 Altick, Punch, p. XIX.
24 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 124.
25 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 356.
26 The Man in the Moon was a monthly periodical started by the ex-staf member Albert
Smith as a direct competition to Punch.
27 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, pp. 111, 114.
28 Layard, Shirley Brooks of “Punch,” p. 116.
29 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 126.
30 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 359.
31 Layard, Shirley Brooks, p. 117.
32 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 131.
33 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 121. On Lemon’s concern, p. 119.
34 Silver, 21 March 1860, Henry Silver Diary.
35 Silver, 2 March 1859, Henry Silver Diary; Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 71.
36 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 51.
37 K. G. Robbins, “Public Opinion, the Press and Pressure Groups” British Foreign Policy
under Sir Edward Grey (ed.) F. H. Hinsley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977), p. 80 cited in David Brown, “Diplomacy and the Fourth Estate: The Role of the
Press in British Foreign Policy in the Age of Palmerston” On the Fringes of Diplomacy:
Infuences on British Foreign Policy, 1800–1945 (eds.) John Fisher and Antony Best (Farn-
ham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 2011), p. 39.
38 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 99.
39 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 340.
40 Shearer West, “Tom Taylor, William Powell Frith, and the British School of Art”
Victorian Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Winter 1990), p. 308; Leary, The Punch Brotherhood,
pp. 22–23.
41 Spielmann, The History of ‘Punch,’ p. 362; See also footnote, Leary, The Punch Brother-
hood, p. 32.
46 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

42 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 151.

43 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 80.
44 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 367.
45 “The Death of Sir Frances Burnand” Evening Mail, Monday 23 April 1917, p. 8.
46 Philip Waller, “Roman Candles” Politics and Culture in Victorian Britain (eds.) Peter
Ghosh and Lawrence Goldman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), p. 210.
47 Doyle was also unreliable in producing illustrations in a timely manner. See Leary, The
Punch Brotherhood, p. 157; for Punch and anti-Catholic sentiments, see McNees, “’Punch’
and the Pope,” pp. 18–45.
48 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 363.
49 Francis Burnand, Records and Reminiscences, Personal and General, Vol. II (London:
Methuen & Co., 1904), p. 228.
50 Layard, Shirley Brooks, p. 116.
51 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 18.
52 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 74.
53 Silver, 23 July 1862, Henry Silver Diary.
54 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 25.
55 Spielmann, The History of ‘Punch,’ p. 74; Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 12.
56 Burnand, Records and Reminiscences, p. 12.
57 Altick, Punch, p. 125.
58 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 23 referring to “John Bull Beaten” Punch, Vol. 20,
p. 115; Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 456–457.
59 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 272–273, 436–437.
60 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 7.
61 Altick, Punch, pp. 44–45.
62 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 101.
63 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 159.
64 Burnand, Records and Reminiscences, Vol. II, p. 8.
65 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 287.
66 Walter Jerrold, Douglas Jerrold and “Punch” (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited,
1910), p. 12.
67 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, pp. 24–25.
68 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 74.
69 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 74; Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 25.
70 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 311–312; Jerrold’s grandson Walter disagreed that
there was animosity and bad feelings between Douglas and Thackeray. He expresses his
doubt in his Douglas Jerrold and “Punch,” pp. 26–33.
71 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 303–306.
72 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 304; Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 19.
73 Blanchard Jerrold, The Life and Remains of Douglas Jerrold (Boston: Ticknor and Fields,
1859), p. 249.
74 Spielmann, The History of ‘Punch,’ p. 297.
75 J. H. Millar, “The Life of ‘Punch’ Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, December 1895,
p. 870.
76 Cited in Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, pp. 30–31.
77 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 71.
78 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 22.
79 Burnand, Records and Reminiscences, p. 17.
80 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 302–303.
81 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 21.
82 Arthur à Beckett, The à Becketts of “Punch” (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., 1903),
pp. 23–28.
83 À Beckett, The à Becketts of “Punch,” pp. 65–67.
84 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 80.
 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!” 47

85 À Beckett, The à Becketts of “Punch,” pp. 64–65.

86 Altick, Punch, pp. 17–18.
87 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 80, 377–378.
88 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 466.
89 Silver, 17 February 1859, Henry Silver Diary. Punch Archive. British Library.
90 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 463.
91 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 172.
92 Illustrated London News, 16 January 1858, p. 70.
93 Spielmann, The History of ‘ “Punch,” p. 463.
94 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 421.
95 George Du Maurier, Social Pictorial Satire: Reminiscences and Appreciations of English Illus-
trators of the Past Generation (New York; London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1898),
p. 21.
96 Altick, Punch, p. 71.
97 Burnand, Records and Reminiscences, pp. 9–10.
98 Du Maurier, Social Pictorial Satire, p. 19.
99 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 437; Du Maurier also notes Leech’s hatred of
noise and buskers, see Du Maurier, Social Pictorial Satire, pp. 40–41.
100 Silver cited in Layard, Shirley Brooks of “Punch,” pp. 115–116; Burnand, Records and
Reminiscences, p. 10; Silver Diary, 11 April 1864 cited in Leary, The Punch Brotherhood,
footnote on p. 24.
101 Du Maurier, Social Pictorial Satire, p. 9. On Leech hating foreigners, see p. 13 and again
on p. 40.
102 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 437.
103 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 21.
104 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 33 and footnote number 87.
105 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 420.
106 Henry J. Miller, “John Leech and the Shaping of the Victorian Cartoon: The Context
of Respectability” Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Fall 2009), p. 267.
107 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 503–504.
108 Layard, Shirley Brooks, p. 223.
109 Philip V. Allingham, “George du Maurier, Illustrator and Novelist” The Victorian Web,
online: www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/dumaurier/pva95.html.
110 Henry James, Partial Portraits, p. 348.
111 James, Partial Portraits, p. 350.
112 On Punch depictions of the strange and awkward, see Banta Barbaric Intercourse, Chap-
ter 2 “Out of Place” with discussion on Du Maurier specifcally found on pp. 76–90.
113 On Du Maurier depictions of the awkward, see Banta Barbaric Intercourse, pp. 76–77;
on his interest in race and hereditary, see Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 505.
114 Laura Vorachek, “Mesmerists and Other Meddler: Social Darwinism, Degeneration,
and Eugenics in Trilby” Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2009), p. 199.
115 James, Partial Portraits, p. 340.
116 Burnand, Records and Reminiscences, p. 10.
117 Layard, The Life and Letters of Charles Samuel Keene of “Punch,” p. 76.
118 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 78, 481.
119 Leonée Ormond, “Edward Linley Sambourne: A Cartoonist in the Art World” The
British Art Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn 2001), p. 5.
120 Reena Suleman, “Out of the Ordinary: Linley Sambourne and the Amateur Model”
The British Art Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn 2001), p. 28.
121 Suleman, Out of the Ordinary, pp. 28–35.
122 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 532.
123 Scully and Varnava, “Introduction,” p. 1.
124 Edward Linley Sambourne, 3 October 1900 and 4 October 1900, Edward Linley Sam-
bourne Diary.
48 “Gentlemen, the cartoon!”

125 Cited in Gareth Cordery and Joseph Meisel (eds.), The Humours of Parliament (Colum-
bus: Ohio State University Press, 2014), p. 7.
126 Cited in Cordery and Meisel (eds.), The Humours of Parliament, p. 7.
127 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 551. Bernard Shaw cited in Cordery and Meisel
(eds.), The Humours of Parliament, p. 8.
128 Gareth Cordery, An Edwardian’s View of Dickens and His Illustrators (Greensboro: Uni-
versity of North Carolina, ELT Press, 2005), pp. 1–2; Cordery and Meisel (eds.), The
Humours of Parliament, p. 9.
129 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 564–565.
130 James, Partial Portraits, pp. 336–337.
131 Altick, Punch, p. 42.
3
“PUNCH IS AN ENGLISH
INSTITUTION”
The attitude of the magazine

On Tuesday, 22 June 1897, Linley Sambourne records events of Queen Victoria’s

Diamond Jubilee in his diary. He notes, “Her Majesty’s most glorious 60th Jubilee
Year of Reign” and with “Troops marching past,” he “Saw the whole procession.”1
Victoria was seventy-eight years of age and at the time of her Diamond Jubilee, she
had become a powerful symbol of imperial unity. Guests of honour included the
eleven colonial Premiers, accompanied by their nation’s military representing the
entire British empire.2 John Tenniel commemorated the event in “For Queen and
Empire!” capturing the nationalistic and imperialistic fervour which the festivities
celebrated in a double-page spread (Figure 3.1). Mr. Punch, the magazine’s mas-
cot, genufects to Victoria, a gesture refecting the deference generally held by the
Punch men for their Queen.
Spielmann states the magazine “has shown unswerving chivalry and reverence”
towards Victoria and “every important incident in the life of the Queen has been
touched upon with the utmost respect and sympathy.”3 When Victoria was nearing
the end of her life, Sambourne made note that “Her Majesty [was] slowly sink-
ing” and expressed “Great anxiety.” Upon her death, he was in a “Frightful rush
all day & much worried” and witnessed the funeral from the corner of Pall Mall
and St. James’s Street, where he patiently waited “from 8.30 to 11.30 when her
late Majesty’s funeral procession passed.”4 Indeed, throughout the Queen’s life, the
artists at Punch refrained from depicting her as a grotesque fgure with exaggerated
features, a common technique cartoonists employ to lampoon their targets. Other
public fgures, however, were not given this same consideration; foreigners were
frequent targets, including Victoria’s German husband, Prince Albert, who was
mercilessly ridiculed by the Punch staf, his unpopularity owing to the fact that he
was of a “foreign nationality.”5

DOI: 10.4324/9781003025573-3
50 “Punch is an English Institution”

FIGURE 3.1 “For Queen and Empire” Punch, Vol. 112 (19 June 1897), pp. 302–303.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

As discussed in the previous chapter, there was substantial prejudice against

foreigners and in a period of heightened geopolitical awareness, imperial rivals
portrayed in Punch were consistently depicted as tyrants or mutinous rebels if
they threatened Britain’s balance of power on the international arena. Spielmann
asserted, “[f]rom frst to last, Punch has always been an Imperialist”6 as well as “an
Englishman of intense patriotism.”7 This chapter explores the characteristic tone
and “attitude” of the magazine. As members of staf became conscientious of its
readership, so too were they aware of their respective roles in shaping the views
of the British public. The chapter begins by taking a look at Punch’s move away
from scurrility, the genre to which satirical journalism traditionally belonged. This
was signifcant in establishing the magazine as a popular periodical that all mem-
bers of the Victorian family could enjoy as the content coincided with notions of
respectability.
The content also shifted from its initial radical stance to a more conservative
outlook that promoted nationalistic and imperialistic sentiments. One of the most
efective means of doing this was through their Large Cuts, or full page or double
page cartoons, which were almost always political and an important feature that
distinguished Punch from its predecessors of satirical periodicals. The ingenious
format of the Large Cuts combined parodies, literary material, familiar childhood
rhymes and tales, with cutting political commentaries and comical caricatures. John
Tenniel and Linley Sambourne were central fgures in creating the cartoons during
this period. Tenniel’s frst contribution to the magazine appeared in 1851 and his
last in 1901, resulting in a total of twenty-three hundred cartoons.8 The focus of
 “Punch is an English Institution” 51

the fnal section of this chapter explores the ways in which these attractive visuals
became signifcant conduits in the circulation and dissemination of cultural and
political knowledge.

Mr. Punch

The gentleman imperialist

Except for a few interruptions, Punch ran for one hundred and sixty years9 and is
frequently referred to as a pillar of the Victorian middle-class establishment and
a national institution as well as one of the most successful and infuential comic
magazines of the English-speaking world.10 One of the main factors contributing
to Punch’s early success was owed, as Richard Altick notes, “less to what it was at
the outset of its career – which was nothing much – than to what it was not.”11 It
is signifcant that Mark Lemon, as one of the founders and frst editor of Punch,
set the standard to which subsequent editors would follow. Lemon ensured that
the magazine kept a safe distance from ofensive jokes and this contrasted starkly
with the tradition of comic periodicals that were notorious for their obscenity
and scandalous articles along with images of wizened or grotesque fgures in com-
promising positions. Instead, Punch was said to be “the personifcation of rousing
merriment and honest, cleanly fun” that distinguished itself from previous mode
of satire “which, under the guise of ‘comic’ journalism, wedded the badinage of
the gutter to the bludgeon of the blackmailer.”12 “Punch keeps up,” Lemon declared
one evening, “by its keeping to the gentlemanly view of things”13 and this approval
of the magazine’s clean and respectable sense of wit and humour was reiterated
throughout the period.
Just one year after Punch’s inaugural issue in 1841, The Times was already endors-
ing the magazine and attributing its success to its sense of decency:

There is one thing, in addition to the cleverness of Punch, which has not a
little contributed to its success, and that is the unvarying good humour and
propriety which prevail in it, and the total exclusion from its pages of all
that is gross, low, or coarsely personal, a discipline the absence of which has
swamped many previous attempts of the same kind.14

In 1842, the Westminster Review, one of the top journals aimed at an intellectual
readership, published a ffty-three-page illustrated article on the frst two volumes
of Punch. This was remarkable; never before had a sophisticated journal given seri-
ous consideration to a magazine that was devoted to comical commentaries.15
The Westminster Review’s article was interspersed by woodcut illustrations, lent
by the “the Proprietor,” and the purpose was to evaluate Punch’s textual and visual
contents. The conclusion was generally positive and attention was paid to the sani-
tation of humour that Lemon worked hard to maintain. It asserts:
52 “Punch is an English Institution”

We have been justified in dwelling for awhile on this amusing periodical

by several considerations. One its moral superiority to the publications
with a similar aim by which it was preceded. The “Satirist,” the “Age,”
the “John Bull,” have endeavoured to avail themselves of the weapons
of wit and humour, but their best puns rarely rise above the level of
obscene jests, and none such disgrace the columns of “Punch.” 16

The article also makes note with “much satisfaction” the “clever” wood-cut illus-
trations which were deemed an “improvement in the art of wood engraving.”17
Lemon’s resolve that Punch should abide by Victorian rules of conduct and
notions of respectability was a shrewd business decision. By changing the nature
of satire in sanitising both textual and visual humour, Punch was not only set apart
and stood out among its competitors, but it was also allowed to establish itself
within the home of respectable Victorian families. Henry James wrote that Punch
“has always been discreet, even delicate” and that the magazine has “rarely been
guilty of a violation of decorum” thereby establishing Punch as a family magazine,
which “may be sent up to the nursery.”18 Punch staf member William Thackeray
also praised the magazine for its family-friendly sense of humour by claiming,
“there never was before published in this world so many volumes that contained
so much cause for laughing, and so little for blushing; so many jokes, and so little
harm.” He went further by stating, “We will laugh in the company of our wives
and children; we will tolerate no indecorum; we like that our matrons and girls
should be pure.”19
Punch’s sense of decency was an essential ingredient in contributing to the suc-
cess of the magazine but what exactly was Punch’s humour? In the inaugural issue,
“The Moral of Punch” considers it “best to be merry and wise” and quoting Lord
Byron, “laugh at all things, for we wish to know, What, after all, are all the things
but a show!”20 Indeed, the magazine became famous for commenting on topical
subjects in a seemingly jovial and good-natured manner; however, which topics
were selected for comical commentary and how they were textually or visually
represented reveals a highly ideological and political awareness. Despite assertions
to the contrary, Punch’s humour was not always friendly nor was it harmless.
In one of his lectures on the art of England, John Ruskin describes the politics
of Punch as follows:

He is a polite Whig, with a sentimental respect for the Crown, and a practi-
cal respect for property. He steadily fatters Lord Palmerston, from his heart
adores Mr. Gladstone; steadily, but not virulently, caricatures Mr. D’Israeli;
violently and virulently castigates assault upon property, in any kind, and
hold up for the general ideal of perfection, to be aimed at by all the children
of heaven and earth, the British Hunting Squire, the British Colonel, and
the British Sailor.21

After its initial radicalism subsided, Punch’s content and tone was tamed
and the magazine’s staff was satisfied with creating mild jabs at social foibles
 “Punch is an English Institution” 53

in hopes of eliciting chuckles from its primarily conservative middle-class

readers.
Punch also became patriotic and imperialistic and both tone and content
refected these sentiments, at times with fervour. “The policy of Punch,” Lemon
declared, “is to ignore the fact that England has been humbled, if fact it be”22
and true to these words, Lemon and staf members were conscientious of repre-
senting Britain as morally upright when depicted among the international com-
munity. By the 1890s, Punch created a magazine that frmly sided with Britain
and its imperialist ambitions and used the popularity of its Large Cut cartoons
to promote this agenda. If the aim of satire is to express moral conviction with
concern for public interest, then the boundaries between “right” and “wrong”
must be made clear.
“The Moral of Punch” claimed that the magazine’s objective is to “Destroy the
principle of evil by increasing the means of cultivating the good”23 but as Martha
Banta rightly points out, “whose ‘right’ and whose ‘wrong’ must [satire] choose,
once it entangles itself in confusion over ‘good’ or ‘bad’ intercourse, driven by
norms that rule the conduct accepted by the civilization of which it is very much
a part?”24 The following section examines Punch’s Large Cut cartoons, which were
important vehicles in circulating and disseminating ideas on who, according to
the magazine, was on the “right” side of history vis-à-vis wider geopolitical con-
cerns. Through patterns of repetition and easily comprehensible tropes and fgures,
the cartoons provide a clear understanding of a larger narrative framework that
includes wider concerns about foreign relations and Britain’s position in the global
community.

Mr. Punch’s big cut

The Large Cut cartoons

In the 1840s, Punch artist John Leech coined the term “cartoon” to refer to satiri-
cal drawings and although the magazine dropped the word, it gained wide cur-
rency until eventually, it came to refer to any comical illustration.25 Punch’s cartoons
included illustrations interspersed around text, often called “social cuts,” elaborate
ornamental initials, as well as the full page images initially called “pencilling,” and
later, “big cuts” or “large cuts.”26 This combination of text and images provided
a model for future comic magazines and revolutionised London’s daily newspa-
pers by integrating cartoons with political journalism.27 Punch’s Large Cuts were
another essential element in the magazine’s success; the images were immensely
popular and represented Punch’s public identity.28 The word “cut” could not have
been more apt. The magazine’s cartoons with their razor-sharp humour often cut
both ways and it can be difcult to discern exactly who was the target of the joke
and who received sympathy. Furthermore, the word “cut” accurately refects the
broader environment in which these cartoons arose.
In order for a topic to make the cut, Punch staf members needed shrewd business
acumen in order to survive the cut-throat world of the nineteenth century periodical
54 “Punch is an English Institution”

press, which was highly competitive and volatile.29 Only topics deemed “hot” enough in
the press would merit a Large Cut. This ensured the cartoons would be comprehensible
because the chosen topics would be at the forefront of public consciousness. The deci-
sion-making process occurred at the weekly Wednesday dinners, after the evening meal,
when someone at the Table would suggest a subject and spark debates and arguments
as the men, each with their own opinions and political leanings, jostled to have his idea
accepted and made into a Large Cut.30 The deciding factor was based on the popularity
of the topic or event in leading daily news, in particular The Times. Punch’s partiality for
The Times was well known and the magazine was often referred to as the visual accom-
paniment to the newspaper’s textual commentaries. This preference was illustrated in
1846 with a small cartoon of two men reading the press: one enjoys Punch by the freside
while the other is engulfed in the news from The Times (Figure 3.2).
The daily press was essential for Punch’s existence; without the news, the maga-
zine would have no material to satirise. The magazine also accepted contributions
and as a popular publication, Punch inevitably attracted a host of hopefuls that
varied in quality. Spielmann commented that the calibre of the jokes “is sufcient
to prove how defcient in wit, if not in humour, is the English people considered
as a community.”31 At times, the national practice of sending in jokes and illustra-
tions proved fruitful for the editors as they search for new talent. Francis Burnand
and Harry Furniss both sent in contributions before being invited as members of
staf. The reliance on the news, however, came with challenges. In October 1871,
Tenniel visualised frustration at not having any newsworthy source by depicting
Mr. Punch kicking up various newspapers in vexation at the lack of notable sub-
jects (Figure 3.3). Another problem was the danger in reiterating and circulating
false news.
During the Boxer Uprising in China, The Times and Daily Mail reprinted
an erroneous report that the British legations in Beijing had fallen to the
Boxers and the entire foreign community was massacred. A memorial ser-
vice was immediately planned for St. Paul’s Cathedral32 and Tenniel created
an emotionally super-charged Large Cut titled, “The Avenger!” (Figure 3.4)
depicting a winged warrior mounted on a white steed bearing down on a
dragon, the symbol of China. The warrior, with the words “civilisation”
inscribed on his wings, draws on connections readers may have with the
familiar legend of England’s patron saint, St. George. Punch frequently used
familiar and well-loved stories, such as myths and legends, to render compli-
cated topical subjects into easily legible images and to ensure readers’ under-
standing of the message.
Themes of school children or caricatures set within a classroom to visualise
politics were frequently employed. Punch also used familiar and instantly recognis-
able allegorical fgures, such as Britannia and John Bull, and its cartoon versions
became both popular and distinguishable. Tenniel, for example, refused to give
into the pressure Brooks applied in attempting to convince him to “modernise” his
depiction of John Bull and this meant that the fgures remained both consistent and
familiar to readers and over time, they became legendary.33 Topics that may be too
 “Punch is an English Institution” 55

FIGURE 3.2 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 10 (14 March 1846), p. 114.

Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

obscure were avoided and if there were concerns that the cartoon might bewilder
the observer, an accompanying poem or article was assigned for clarifcation and
the text was equally important.
The careful attention paid to ensure the magazine’s message was understood
made the artists’ job challenging. Not only were they required to be artistically
talented in order to create attractive illustrations but they were also judged by their
ability to disentangle the chaotic nature of the discussions at the Table in order
to translate complex topics into simple and comprehensible cartoons. In 1863,
Burnand wondered “how Tenniel gets the notion [for the Large Cut] out of such
56 “Punch is an English Institution”

FIGURE 3.3 “Nothing in the Papers!” Punch, Vol. 61 (21 October 1871), p. 167.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

a chaos of talk about it.”34 For Tenniel, he frequently expressed frustration at the
verbal, and not visual, character of the discussions. On one occasion, he cried out
in frustration, “How am I to draw posterity?”35
Leech was also cognisant of the importance of the imagined readers’ under-
standing. He was said to “have cared little about politics” and rarely joined in the
debates and discussions around the Table, only voicing his opinion if he was unable
to visualise the proposed topic.36 In February 1859, Brooks suggested that the Large
Cut should comment on Napoleon III’s aggressive policies on the Continent.“You
can draw a sword, you know, Leech” – sitting on a powder barrel and smoking the
pipe of peace. “Yes, that’s easy enough,” says Leech, “but how can people know that
it is the pipe of peace, unless I put a label on it, and that would look ridiculous?”37
In the end, Leech created “The French Porcupine” bristling with bayonets while
simultaneously declaring “L’Empire, c’est la paix” (the Empire is the peace), a clear
visual message of France’s hostile intentions (Figure 3.5).
One of the most clever techniques Punch was highly skilled at employing was
the double topicality cartoon, which combined two current events into a single
Large Cut. In 1869 when the Siamese Twins, Chang and Eng, were sched-
uled to appear at the Egyptian Hall in London, Tenniel depicted the Church of
England and the Church of Ireland conjoined with Gladstone ready to separate
them with the blade of “Disestablishment’” (Figure 3.6). The cartoons combined
 “Punch is an English Institution” 57

FIGURE 3.4 “The Avenger!” Punch, Vol. 119 (25 July 1900), pp. 64–65.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
58 “Punch is an English Institution”

FIGURE 3.5 “The French Porcupine” Punch, Vol. 36 (19 February 1859), p. 75.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

political news with a popular non-political event to give readers two of-the-
moment events in the most Punchiest of cuts.38 In another cartoon titled, “In the
Movement” (Figure 3.7), the cartoon used double topicality to comment on two
political events. In this cartoon, the Empress Dowager Cixi pushes her belong-
ings on a fat wheelbarrow as she moves capitals. Paul Krüger, the President of
the South African Republic and representative of the Boer cause, peeps at Cixi
over a wall and mutters to himself, “Shifting her capital? My idea!” In 1900, the
Eight-Nation Alliance reached the capital and brought an end to the Court sup-
ported Boxer Uprising; the same year, Krüger left the Transvaal in exile after his
defeat in the Boer War.
The double-topicality cartoons only worked if both topics featured prominently
in the newspapers and many topics were selected simply because they were the most
talked-about subjects in London. When the news about Abraham Lincoln’s assas-
sination reached London, it was agreed among the Punch men that this was too big
an event to not merit a Large Cut. Brooks was not present that Wednesday evening
but Tom Taylor suggested a cut showing a sorrowful Britannia placing a wreath
over a funeral bier (Figure 3.8). Tenniel created the cut, Lemon added the caption,
and Taylor wrote accompanying verses.39 When Brooks returned the following
week, he was upset by Taylor’s text, arguing that the verses placed the magazine
in a bad light as Punch was previously critical of Lincoln and the North during the
American Civil War. “Punch can do no wrong,” Brooks furiously declared.40
 “Punch is an English Institution” 59

FIGURE 3.6 “Our Siamese Twins” Punch, Vol. 56 (13 February 1869), p. 59.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
60 “Punch is an English Institution”

FIGURE 3.7 “In the Movement” Punch, Vol. 119 (29 August 1900), p. 155.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Although both Lemon and Henry Silver disagreed with Brooks, the Large
Cuts tended to appeal to nationalist sentiments. Tenniel’s 1857 “The British
Lion’s Vengeance on the Bengal Tiger” (see the previous chapter, Figure 2.4)
is powerfully evocative in its portrayal of the lion pouncing upon the tiger in
defence of a helpless woman and child under attack. Upon publication, Silver
noted in his diary that this cartoon “increased the circulation”41 and indeed,
Tenniel’s cartoons were extremely popular. The Daily Telegraph reported, “the
world awaited the advent of his cartoon at the judgment seat”42 and what was
being judged was usually a political subject, sometimes fercely contested among
the Punch men. With diverging political opinions between them, divisive topics
and unsettling questions were unsurprisingly the cause of much heated debate
at the Table.
One such argument occurred over the contentious issue of Governor Eyre,
who brutally suppressed a slave rebellion in Jamaica and was brought to trial in
England. In writing about the trial, Charles L. Graves declared that Punch “never
swerved from the frm conviction that [Eyre] had saved Jamaican society, white
and black, by his promptness and resolution.”43 In reality, the issue was divisive.
 “Punch is an English Institution” 61

FIGURE 3.8 “Britannia Sympathises with Columbia” Punch, Vol. 48 (6 May 1865),
p. 183.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Lemon, Brooks, Leigh, and Mayhew wanted a Large Cut defending Eyre whereas
Silver and Taylor disagreed with Taylor stating that he would “have no hand in
the Cut.”44 Silver and Taylor’s dissenting voices were the minority and at the end
of the controversy in May 1868, Leigh clearly positioned the magazine’s defence
for Eyre for its readers:

Ye savages thirsting for bloodshed and plunder,

Ye miscreants burning for rapine and prey,
By the fear of the lash and the gallows kept under,
Henceforth who shall venture to stand in your way?
Run riot, destroy, ravage, kill without pity,
Let any man how he molests you beware,
Behold how hard the Jamaica Committee,
To ruin are trying to hunt gallant Eyre.45

Whatever the diferences of political opinion among the Punch men, they were
generally clear about the class and race they were engaging with, whether mock-
ing or bonding, especially after the death of Jerrold and his radical political
outlook.
62 “Punch is an English Institution”

FIGURE 3.9 “The Rhodes Colossus” Punch, Vol. 103 (10 December 1892), p. 266.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “Punch is an English Institution” 63

FIGURE 3.10 “The Triumph of Civilisation!” Punch, Vol. 107 (11 August 1894), p. 62.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
64 “Punch is an English Institution”

Large Cuts of empire expansion increased substantially during this period

of heightened imperial identity and geopolitical competition. Sambourne’s
“The Rhodes Colossus” provides a good example (Figure 3.9) as it was an
incredible success at the time and continues to be an enduring visible rep-
resentation of British imperialism. In 1895, Blackwood’s Edinburgh Maga-
zine praised it as a “triumph of bold perspective.”46 The cartoon signified
Britain bringing progress and modernity to the African continent and thus
the image, along with Punch’s various Large Cuts dealing with imperialism,
shaped understandings of empire and “otherness” in the British imagina-
tion. 47 The subject matters in Punch were continually commended for its abil-
ity to accurately reflect the “public spirit” and Sambourne’s 1892 depiction of
Cecil Rhodes was published at a time of increased imperialist fervour. Punch’s
Large Cuts provided British readers with a means of engaging with empire as
well as issues of imperialism and due to the careful attention paid to illustrate
the most newsworthy events, these images reveal what was being discussed at
a particular point in time.
This did not mean, however, that Punch refrained from criticising
aspects of Britain’s engagement with foreign nations. The magazine was
consistently critical of aggressive foreign trade framed under the rhetoric
of civilisation. In 1894, at the beginning of open hostilities in the First
Sino-Japanese war, Sambourne illustrated the perceived result of “export-
ing civilisation” by depicting the allegorical figure, “Civilisation” standing
among an arsenal of modern weaponry as she observes two Asian dragons
in the midst of a vicious combat (Figure 3.10). She watches and “cries,/‘Is
this my work?’ ” Burnand wrote the accompanying verses and asks “what
has the West taught to the East,/Save the science of war, and tippling?”
The East were not beyond reproach; China and Japan were eager to receive
and use weapons against each other, taking “from the White-man all that’s
bad” and welcoming “Big Guns” while vigorously rejecting the teachings
of the Bible. 48
Sambourne’s Large Cut and Burnand’s accompanying verses challenge Brit-
ain’s civilising mission abroad. They prompt questions about the nature of
relations with foreign nations and how to engage with people outside British
society and behavioural frameworks. In Punch’s inaugural issue, the Botecudo
is illustrated “disfigured by civilisation,” the unfortunate result of one doomed
to partake in British ideas of sartorial elegance in order to profit British eco-
nomic interests (Figure 3.11).49 The accompanying text declares that “the
popular advocates of civilization certainly are not the most civilized of indi-
viduals” before moving on to ask “what is civilisation?” and “have we such
a superabundance of that commodity among us, that we should think about
exporting it?”50
With Britain’s close and continual encounters with far-away nations and peo-
ples during a time of global expansion, Punch provided readers with a sense of
 “Punch is an English Institution” 65

FIGURE 3.11 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 1 (1841), p. 27.

Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
66 “Punch is an English Institution”

FIGURE 3.12 “Back Again!” Punch, Vol. 85 (27 October 1883), p. 195.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

familiarity. The jabs at the disorderly lower classes or superfciality of the middle
classes ofered comic pleasure at a tumultuous time of rapid changes. Anxieties
could be dispelled by laughing away social foibles, especially if the targets were
obviously, and entertainingly, out of place and who better than the foreigner with
diferences in physiognomy and mannerisms? Codes of behaviour as well as social
and racial hierarchies were lampooned and emphasised within the pages of Punch,
and if unsettled, satirical attacks would swiftly fall upon the defector.
Foreign imitation of “Britishness” was held in contempt. The return to
London by the Zulu king Cetewayo in 1883 prompted Sambourne to cre-
ate “Back Again!” (Figure 3.12) in which Cetewayo wears a hybrid mix of
African and English clothing. Gilbert à Beckett wrote accompanying verses
 “Punch is an English Institution” 67

FIGURE 3.13 “Putting His Foot In It” Punch, Vol. 93 (10 December 1887), p. 267.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

stating that the real reason for the king’s downfall by British military forces in
1879 and his inability to reign was due to being “ ‘spise” by his own people for
becoming a “Masher” and dressing in “togs à la mode.”51 In another cartoon,
George Du Maurier, the social etiquette aficionado, depicts a Japanese man
in Western eveningwear, standing awkwardly as he talks with a seated woman
68 “Punch is an English Institution”

who asks if “ladies’ feet” in Japan are “still squeeze[d] up” (Figure 3.13). He
explains how footbinding is a Chinese custom and thereby Japanese women
could grow their feet “to quite their full size.” He then blunders into an
unintentional backhanded compliment by telling her, “Not that any would
ever rival yours, Madam!”52 Mannerism and dress were important and visually
identifiable racial markers. Cetewayo and the Japanese, who were emergent
imperial players, were disrupting established racial categories that were easily
identifiable through sartorial distinction. Tastes and behavioural norms were
what distinguished the British from “others” and for Punch, foreigners “may
be able to put on Western clothing and learn British etiquette, but they could
never be mistaken as British.”53
The success of Punch’s Large Cuts lays in the fact that the men behind
the magazine were adept at pinpointing the hottest topics of the day and
the artists were skilled at creating clean, comical, and attractive images. The
men were also conscious of the importance in tapping into readers’ political
awareness and thus the message in the Large Cuts was designed to be quickly
understood. These visuals provide a glimpse into topics that were of utmost
concern at particular moments in time. Many issues would undoubtedly have
been unmentioned; as with any periodical press, Punch tailored its content to
the interest of its readers in order to ensure its continued success. 54 At times,
topics were selected for no other reason than the event was so talked about
that it was simply unavoidable and there was certainly disagreements at the
Table. Sambourne, for example, started as a junior artist and was conscious of
the hierarchy at Punch. For the most part, the subjects of his cartoons were
decided for him and thus the Large Cuts should be seen as a collective effort
with the artist, at times, being dictated on what to draw. Although there
were differences of opinion, a cartoon always emerged from the cacophony
of debate and in generating the weekly Cuts, Punch not only engaged with
issues at the forefront of public consciousness, but the magazine also played
an important part in the shaping and dissemination of cultural and political
knowledge.

Notes
1 Sambourne, 22 June 1897, Edward Linley Sambourne Diary.
2 Diane Peters, “A Celebration of Empire: Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee” CAML
Review/Revue de L’ACBM, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1998), pp. 25–26.
3 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 214–215.
4 Sambourne, 20, 21, 22 January 1901, 2 February 1901, Edward Linley Sambourne Diary.
5 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 215.
6 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 120.
7 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 110.
8 Frankie Morris, Artist of Wonderland (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 2005), p. 225.
 “Punch is an English Institution” 69

9 Punch ran from 1841–1992 then re-launched in 1996 until it closed permanently in
2002. “About” Punch Magazine Cartoon Archive. Online: https://www.punch.co.uk/
about/index.
10 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 1. Leary states that the magazine was “not merely
the most successful Victorian comic periodical, but – measured by circulation, infu-
ence, and longevity – one of the most successful magazines that has ever existed,”
p. 2.
11 Altick, Punch, p. 9.
12 Mayhew, A Jorum of “Punch,” p. VI.
13 Silver, 28 June 1860, Henry Silver Diary.
14 “Covent-Garden” The Times, 27 December 1842, p. 5.
15 Altick, Punch, pp. 11–12.
16 The Westminster Review, Vol. 38 (1842), July–October, pp. 316–317.
17 The Westminster Review, Vol. 38 (1842), July–October, p. 317.
18 James, Partial Portraits, pp. 334–335.
19 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 5–6.
20 “The Moral of Punch” Punch, Vol. 1 (1841), p. 1.
21 John Ruskin, The Art of England (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1884), p. 123.
22 Silver, 29 June 1864, Henry Silver Diary.
23 “The Moral of Punch” Punch, Vol. 1 (1841), p. 1.
24 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, p. 25.
25 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 187–188; see also Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 35.
26 Brian Maidment, “Pencillings, Cuts and Cartoons: Punch and Early Victorian Comic
Illustration” Punch Historical Archive 1841–1992. Cengage Learning, 2014. Online,
n.p.
27 Altick, Punch, p. 124.
28 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 35.
29 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, p. 19.
30 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” pp. 168–169; Leary’s The Punch Brotherhood discusses
in great detail the Table talks of the Punch members of staf.
31 Spielmann, The History of ‘Punch,’ p. 146.
32 The service at St. Paul’s never transpired due to receipt of a cable from the
American minister at Beijing, whose message conflicted with the newspaper’s
articles. James Hevia, English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-
century China (Durham: Hong Kong: Duke University Press, 2003), p. 192.
33 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 42.
34 Silver, 1 July 1863, Henry Silver Diary.
35 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 47.
36 Layard, Shirley Brooks of “Punch,” pp. 115–116.
37 Layard, Shirley Brooks of “Punch,” p. 165.
38 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 47.
39 Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 52.
40 Silver, 10 May 1865, Henry Silver Diary; cited in Leary, The Punch Brotherhood, p. 52.
41 Silver, 7 November 1864, Henry Silver Diary.
42 Daily Telegraph (27 February 1914) as cited in Morris, Artist of Wonderland, p. 225.
43 Charles L. Graves, Mr. Punch’s History of Modern England, Vol. II (London: Cassell and
Company, Ltd., 1921), p. 25.
44 Silver, 27 May 1868, Henry Silver Diary.
45 “The Revolt League Against Eyre” Punch, Vol. 54 (30 May 1868), p. 237.
46 Millar, “The Life of ‘Punch’,” p. 877.
47 Michael Cohen, “Imagining Militarism: Art Young and The Masses Face the Enemy”
Radical History Review, No. 106 (Winter 2010), p. 97; Richard Scully, “Constructing the
70 “Punch is an English Institution”

Colossus: The Origins of Linley Sambourne’s Greatest ‘Punch’ Cartoon” International

Journal of Comic Art, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2012), p. 136.
48 “Eastward Ho!” Punch, Vol. 107 (11 August 1894), p. 63.
49 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, p. 33.
50 “Civilisation” Punch, Vol. 1 (1841), p. 27.
51 “Back Again!” Punch, Vol. 85 (27 October 1883), p. 195.
52 “Putting His Foot in It” Punch, Vol. 93 (10 December 1887), p. 267.
53 Amy Matthewson, “Satirising Imperial Anxiety in Victorian Britain: Representing
Japan in Punch Magazine, 1852–1893” Contemporary Japan (2021), p. 19.
54 Altick, Punch, p. XXI.
4
“A CHINESE PUZZLE”1
The trajectory of negating China

Two months after the opening of the Great Exhibition of 1851, John Tenniel cre-
ated “The Happy Family in Hyde Park” (Figure 4.1) and represented the event as
harmonious internationalism bringing the people of the world together. Percival
Leigh wrote the accompanying text, highlighting how the “British Lion” is “on the
best of terms both with his-self and everybody helse” and is the “monarch of all he
surveys.” It moves on to highlight the amity of nations; the “Bear of Roosha” was
noted for his “remarkable gentleness of disposition” and “wonderful improvement
of his temper” made by changing his diet to “plum-pudding.” The ferocious Bengal
Tiger now enjoys a game of leapfrog and the “Great Indian Elephant is amusin’
his-self by feedin’ the Chinese Pig with gingerbread nuts.”2 Tenniel’s correspond-
ing Large Cut visualises the textual description of the world joyfully participating
in the event. Prince Albert, the royal patron of the Exhibition, stands outside the
Crystal Palace bringing attention to the global community all merrily dancing
within the glass walls. Upon closer inspection, however, the image reveals a more
discordant state of afairs.
Prince Albert stands with other European fgures, directing their attention to
the exotic foreigners put on display. Jefrey A. Auerbach explains how the “alien
others” are “separated behind the glass windows of the Crystal Palace” as if they
are specimens in “a museum case of a circus cage, engaged in a bizarre and perhaps
primitive dance.”3 With such a mixture of class and race, the Crystal Palace became
a voyeuristic spectacle, a place to see and be seen, and the exhibits themselves
became of secondary importance. Europe, imagined as a united entity, formed
part of the only group thought capable of agency and therefore take their place
as viewers, albeit from a careful distance, gazing upon the uncivilised.4 The odd
combination of races was made more peculiar with the addition of diferent social
classes within British society coming together. Punch ridiculed the working classes

DOI: 10.4324/9781003025573-4
72 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.1 “The Happy Family in Hyde Park” Punch, Vol. 21 (19 July 1851), p. 38.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

rubbing shoulders with “their betters” while simultaneously using foreignness as a

convenient visual “other” to bring Britons of all classes together.
This chapter traces the trajectory of Punch’s changing perspective of China from
the 1840s to the 1860s. The frst three decades brought about a change in tone
and outlook, beginning with playful condescension before slipping into scornful
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 73

condemnation. Throughout the 1840s, Punch’s engagement with China focused

either on concerns over tea, a foreign commodity that was becoming an essen-
tial product in British daily life, or on civilising missions, in which the target for
criticism was on the British, not the Chinese. There were, however, commentaries
refecting a sense of superiority in Britain’s recent victory in the First Opium War
and China was positioned as technologically backward in comparison to Britain.
By 1851, the magazine re-directed its attention to the Great Exhibition with its
reportage incorporating comic jabs at the British social class system as well as tex-
tual and visual quips at foreigners in London attending the event.
By examining Punch’s commentaries on peoples and events surrounding the
Great Exhibition, the magazine reveals dynamics of power imbalances in the Brit-
ish social class system as well as wider anxieties of Britain’s own position within the
international community. Caricatures of the Chinese were employed as a conveni-
ent visual contrast to notions of “Britishness” and the cartoons utilised race as a tool
of diferentiation to produce a unifed British identity. No matter how diferent
the working classes were to the upper classes, they were still British subjects and
could claim, whether imagined or not, a shared system of values, mannerisms, and
tastes. By the end of the 1850s, Britain and China were once again engaged in open
hostilities in the Arrow War, also known as the Second Opium War. This time, the
sense of playful patriotism that permeated commentaries of the First Opium War
was replaced by vitriolic contempt for China and the Chinese, refecting develop-
ments in Sino-British relations as well as the general negation of China in the Brit-
ish popular imagination.

China defeated

Playful condescension
Nathan Dunn’s Chinese Collection opened in London on 23 June 1842 and was
met with much enthusiasm. Dunn, an American merchant and philanthropist,
spent twelve years as a trader in China and was allowed to amass such a collection
in gratitude by the Canton authorities for refusing to deal in opium.5 The collec-
tion was frst opened in Philadelphia in 1831 before making its way to London
where it was housed in a pagoda in Hyde Park Corner that was purposely built for
the exhibit.6 It displayed 1,341 items and was “the largest and most comprehensive
assemblage of Chinese artefacts of the day.”7 The exhibition came complete with
gilt idols and scowling dragons, replicas of Chinese streets and shops as well as the
interior of a private Chinese home.8 Madame Tussaud contributed wax fgurines
of Commissioner Lin and his Favourite Concubine9 as well as a Chinese couple
positioned to look like spectators, with the wife moving her head as she spoke to
her husband.10
The collection arrived when Britain recently emerged victorious in the First
Opium War and there was curiosity for information on the defeated nation. The
accompanying London edition of the catalogue sold more than 300,000 copies and
the exhibition itself was maintained for several years before returning to America.11
74 “A Chinese Puzzle”

The purpose was to educate through the visual, “by things rather than words,”12
and thus the collection provided an instructional display into perceived national
characteristics of the peoples of China. The Illustrated London News commented
that the exhibit:

Analyse the mental and moral qualities of the Chinese, and gather some
knowledge of their idols, their temples, their pagodas, their bridges, their
arts, their sciences, their manufactures, their fancies, their parlours, their
drawing rooms. . . . Here we have, not one object, but thousands; not a single
discovery, but an empire with all its variety of light and shade, its experience,
[and] its mind.13

Dunn’s exhibition became a space where the collected material culture was pro-
moted as knowledge not just about China, but represented a true refection of the
mindset of the people.
Due to the popularity of the exhibition, Punch not only reported on the col-
lection in their weekly journal, but a satirical guidebook was also published, titled
Punch’s Guide to the Chinese Exhibition at Knightsbridge. The focus in the periodical
and the guidebook was on providing mocking commentaries on the ineptitude of
the Chinese army, the despotic nature of the Emperor, and the dilapidated condi-
tions of antiquated Chinese military technology. The interest on Chinese armoury,
considered “the most attractive portion of the exhibition,” was due to the fact that
“[Britons] are at war” with China. However, the weapons on display were ridi-
culed, dismissing notions that China was, in any way, a threat to Britain. Chinese
bows and arrows were pronounced “their best weapons, for if they hurt nobody
else with them, at least they don’t hurt themselves.” The shields were described as
“the most truly destructive of all their instruments of war” because the Chinese
“paint such dreadful faces, that the very sight of them has been known to make
English soldiers fall down, and almost die – of laughing.” Even the Duke of Wel-
lington could not contain his amusement when confronted with the glass cases
flled with Chinese weaponry. It was reported that he simply “turned his head away
and smiled.”14
Chinese weapons were not the only satirical targets; the Chinese military was
mocked for its inefciency and lack of courage. Punch’s Guide to the Chinese Exhi-
bition at Knightsbridge is replete with quips regarding the Chinese army “running
away” as the “grand military manoeuvre . . . which is the most perfect feat of
the Chinese soldiery.”15 In one cartoon, the Chinese military is in disarray dur-
ing its fight from the battlefeld; by contrast, the calm and orderly British army
is seen approaching in the background, ready for battle (Figure 4.2). The notion
of a tyrannical Chinese Emperor is used as explanation for such cowardly mili-
tary behaviour. Punch explains that the “most anxious parent never whipped his
children more frequently” and this supposed liberal use of corporal punishment is
juxtaposed with the British. Chinese whippings “seems to be the very antipodes of
English, for there they often whip people’s heads of.”16
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 75

FIGURE 4.2 “Chinese Soldiers retiring from Service” Punch’s Guide to the Chinese Exhi-
bition at Knightsbridge, Vol. 21 (1851), p. 39.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

The placement of China in binary opposition to Britain provided readers with a

shared sense of value and principles. The description of Chinese soldiers as cowards led
by a cruel tyrant constructed and reinforced perceived notions and ideas of “oriental
manners” and this created a sense of “Britishness” in underscoring a familiarity in the
way “we” behave that is entirely unlike “them.” While seemingly playful in nature, Punch
produced a set of principles such as honour, rational, and righteousness, and set them
against the imagined follies and disgraceful behaviour of “others.”17 Punch’s ridiculing
of Chinese armoury, on one level, dispelled any anxieties over the war with China; the
commentaries suggested that China’s antiquated military was no match against Britain’s
technologically advanced equipment. There were, however, deeper implications.
Already in the eighteenth century, European ideas of productivity and progress
along with the speed of development during the Industrial Revolution reinforced
notions of superiority.18 Punch’s remarks coincided with broader narratives of China
as a symbolic stagnant country, an idea that came to dominate the discourse on
China in the British imagination by the mid-nineteenth century. The jibes may
have been created with the intention to produce a sense of fun, but underneath the
layer of joviality lies a sense of superiority imbedded in notions of progress. The
arrival of a Chinese junk named Keying in March 1848 prompted more material for
comparison. The vessel was nothing the British public had ever seen before, yet it
was an example of Chinese shipbuilding – a technology that the British were well
acquainted with. Keying was described in Punch as “a real ship, mounted with real
guns, and a sail made like an immense door-mat” and concluded that “everything
is curious about it” and that it “is the most perfect Chinese puzzle we ever saw.”19
Keying served as both an exotic object of curiosity as well as something familiar and
it caused quite a lot of excitement when it docked on the Thames.
76 “A Chinese Puzzle”

The British press not only reported on the “oddity” of the vessel itself, but also
reports were made when the crew aboard Keying decided to stage a series of per-
formances. Crew members announced a “gigantic Balloon Residence” titled “The
Flying Palace of Aladdin” as well as a “dance on the deck, surrounded by Lanterns,
Flying Fish, Fiery Dragons, etc.” The dance, which promised to be in the native
manner, was accompanied by singing, which was compared to the “impromptu
feline discourse, which we sometimes hear on housetops at dead of night.”20 The
French composer Hector Berlioz described the singing as “wildcat howls” and
“turkey cluckings” and ended by stating that he “shall with difculty be persuaded
that the Chinese are not demented.”21 Residents in the area appeared to have been
in agreement and the City Navigation Committee issued an order for the music to
cease. Nothing more was reported on Keying after that point and in 1853, she was
towed to River Mersey and abandoned.22
Amidst the quips about China’s “puzzling” military technology and the princi-
ples held by Chinese soldiers, Punch was deeply concerned over trade and Britain’s
dependence on the foreign commodity of tea. Commenting on the British victory
in the First Opium War and the indemnity imposed on China, an article titled
“The Peace with China” remarked,

tea will be dearer now than it has ever been before; for it happens that the
Chinese have undertaken to pay 21 millions of dollars without having a sin-
gle rap towards it; and they intend to raise the money by taxing every pound
of tea that is exported from the country. Thus, what we receive with one
hand we shall pay with the other.23

Britain may have won the battle but in reality, it was China who won the war. By
heavily taxing tea, a commodity that Britons could not do without, the fow of
silver would be in China’s favour and to illustrate the point further, a songsheet,
“The Queen’s Speech – Peace with China” sarcastically celebrates Britain’s vic-
tory by allowing China to “tax our tea” in order to pay the indemnity.24
The history of tea-drinking in Britain dates back to the seventeenth and eight-
eenth centuries when tea was a luxury product and a symbol of wealth and status
since only the aristocracy was able to aford its consumption. In the last decades of
the eighteenth century, imports of tea rose from less than one million to over ten
million pounds (in weight).25 By the nineteenth century, it had become a neces-
sity. In Tea, Its Mystery and History, Samuel Phillips Day explains that tea was “the
only real luxury which is common to rich and poor alike”26 and by the 1840s, tea,
along with white bread, were the staple diet of even the poorest labourers. Day
quotes an unnamed “eminent statesman” who asserts,

What was frst regarded as a luxury, has now become, if not an absolute
necessity, at least one of our accustomed daily wants, the loss of which would
cause more sufering and excite more regret than would the deprivation of
many things which once were counted as necessaries of life.27
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 77

Between 1841 and 1850, the average consumption of tea, per annum, per
head was 1.6 lb; this increased to 2.31 lbs in the following decade and by
1891–1900, the average Briton was consuming 5.7 lb. of tea per year. Table 4.1
demonstrates the striking rise of tea consumption in the United Kingdom,
including Ireland.28

TABLE 4.1 Table of Tea Consumption29

Period Average number of lb.of tea Average consumption per head

consumed per annum per annum in lb.
1851–1860 65,160,456 2.31

1861–1870 97,775,548 3.26

1871–1880 144,462,622 4.37

1881–1890 178,130,836 4.92
1891–1900 224,176,800 5.70

By the nineteenth century, tea had become the nation’s habitual beverage but
its symbol of British identity rested on a foreign product imported from China.
Sino-British relations therefore became fraught due to Britain’s dependency
on Chinese tea that tipped the balance of trade in China’s favour.
A possible solution suggested by Punch was to “bully the Celestials into
adopting our wants and habits as their own which- as the usual cry about
civilisation has been already got up – will no doubt be the consequence.” The
article continues,

We shall, perhaps, teach them that bald heads and barbarism are synony-
mous – a conviction which, if once knocked into them, will give an impetus
to our wig-manufacturers; and if, under the pretext of civilisation, we can
compel them to put on bear-skin coats, with souweater hats, we shall impart
a refreshing buoyancy to the slop-market.
...
Now that the Chinese are doomed to “civilisation,” they may make up
their minds to be bullied, robbed, and swindled in every direction; for, in the
political vocabulary, “to civilise the people of a distant country,” has a mean-
ing which the treatment of the Indians in North America will give a pretty
accurate solution of.30

Punch recognised the uselessness of wigs, “bear-skin coats,” and “souweater hats”
to the Chinese market and highlighted commercial subjugation concealed in the
narrative of “civilisation” which “the Chinese are doomed to.”31
In “Peace with the Pig-Tails,” Douglas Jerrold, writing under the initial “Q,”
criticised politicians and merchants who, “in the anticipative eye of proft, already
see the Emperor of China clothed in a Manchester shirt, all his wives in Manchester
cotton, and the whole of his court handling Shefeld knives and forks.”32 Jerrold,
78 “A Chinese Puzzle”

always critical of establishments and social hierarchies, was particularly scornful of

profteering couched under the rubric of “civilising missions.” He railed against
the divergence of funds to missions abroad when resources were badly needed for
philanthropic eforts within British society.33 Eight years later, his scorn did not
abate. In 1850, Jerrold questioned the morality of Britain’s global trade practices in
attempting to fulfl the “Manchester dream” which is the “vision that shows that
every Chinaman in a night-cap of cotton is to be realised by the percussion caps of
English infantry.”34
Punch’s attitude towards China in the early 1840s was a combination of play-
fulness mixed with a sense of superiority. The real target of attacks was British
social and political ills and Jerrold’s distinctive venomous style of expressing his
disapproval was felt within the general tone of the magazine. Punch’s initial radi-
calism in its early years tended to use China and the Chinese simply as a tool to
make pointed social and political criticisms on British issues. A good example
is found in “Exhibition of the English in China,” in which a satirical exhibition
by a Chinese “Dunn from Pekin” who “has sojourned many years in England.”
The collection features “the faces and fashions of the barbarian English” with
an accompanying “catalogue of our good and bad qualities.” Displays include an
exhausted and overworked needlewoman crying onto her work (Figure 4.3) and

FIGURE 4.3 “Case IV. – A Sempstress” Punch, Vol. 6 (1844), p. 220.

Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 79

FIGURE 4.4 “Case IX. – A Shopkeeper” Punch, Vol. 6 (1844), p. 221.

Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

a greedy and cunning shopkeeper, represented as a fox rubbing his hands together
(Figure 4.4).35
The employment of a “foreign observer” has been a popular and traditional tool
used by satirists to explore national values and principles. In the eighteenth century,
Montesquieu’s Persian Letters and Oliver Goldsmith’s The Citizen of the World used fcti-
tious Oriental observers to challenge claims of universal truths and highlight a nation’s
political and social foibles. While it is the satirist’s own nation that is the obvious subject
of attack, the ideological use of “Orientals” maintained stereotypes and underscored
diference through racial physiognomy as well as supposed manners and customs.36
Punch used China as an “Oriental observer,” an already familiar satirical tool,
to lampoon a variety of domestic issues and raise disconcerting questions about
the state of British society. Who, Punch asks its readers, are the real barbar-
ians and what ethical values equate to a nation that can claim to be civilised?
Throughout the 1840s, the magazine’s comments on the First Opium War, Brit-
ish dependency on tea as well as foreign trade, reveal an awareness of a global
80 “A Chinese Puzzle”

community. By 1851, this consciousness moved away from its radical stance and
Punch re-directed its focus towards events surrounding the Great Exhibition
when China, along with “foreign others,” were employed, not as a vehicle to
ask unsettling questions or critic a variety of social ills, but to solidify a sense of
British identity.

The great exhibition

The familiar and the foreign

On May Day 1851, Queen Victoria opened the frst international exhibition at the
Crystal Palace in Hyde Park. Aptly named the Great Exhibition, it was a tremen-
dous success with over 15,000 contributors whose objects were displayed along
more than ten miles and were viewed by over six million visitors, almost a ffth
of the entire British population.37 The purpose of the event was twofold: frstly, it
was an instructional display about the processes of industrialisation during a period
of heightened tensions among discontented industrial workers and participants of
the Chartist movement. Secondly, it was a display of imperialism and power rep-
resented by manufactured goods and industrial wealth from nations around the
world. The event was ofcially organised by Prince Albert and its policy was to
include and encourage the attendance of the working class. Organisers’ recognised
that the Exhibition was made possible by the results produced by this sector of
society.
There was also an educational component to the event. It was believed that
through guidance and education, the working class would achieve a strong sense of
national identity that would trump ideas of class revolt or revolution that was hap-
pening in parts across Europe.38 The industrial economy gave rise to rapid urban
population growth and masses of people residing in new industrial cities were
viewed with suspicion by the upper and middle classes due to the possibilities for
revolutionary activities. The new industry workers were also becoming conscious
of their economic hardships and aware of their political potential.39 Frederick Wil-
liam of Prussia wrote to Prince Albert, the ofcial organiser of the Great Exhibi-
tion, expressing his fears that there will be a mass disruption in London during
the event. Prince Albert replied, “In England . . . we fear neither risings nor
murderous attacks.”40 However, this expression of confdence in the British public
faltered when, a few days later, organisers tried to ban the public from attending
the May Day Opening Ceremony in order to protect Queen Victoria (a decision
later overturned).41
Feelings of fear and snobbery had organisers apprehensive of potential “mobs”
of working class Britons mingling with the middle and upper classes. One solution
was to ofer varying admission prices on diferent days. Season tickets could be
purchased at £3 3s “for a gentleman” and £2 2s “for a lady” and only those with
season tickets were permitted on the opening day. On the second and third day,
the fee was reduced to £1; on the fourth, it dropped to 5s until 26 May when the
fee would be 1s from Monday to Thursday, 2s 6d on Fridays, and 5s on Saturdays
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 81

and organisers agreed that children under the age of 13 would be admitted at
half price.42 The division of entrance prices allowed people of the middle and
upper classes to choose whether or not they preferred to segregate themselves. Lord
Palmerston, for example, chose to attend only on Saturdays when the admission fee
was set at the highest price and would therefore reduce the ability of the working
classes to attend.43
When the Great Exhibition fnally opened, the working classes showed inter-
est and many made their way to London. Those coming from the industrial
northern part of the country came in great numbers with estimates between
750,000 and 1,000,000.44 The event became one of the rare and few occasions
during the Victorian era that allowed social classes from across Britain to come
in close proximity of each other. Although there were no revolts, the codes of
conduct between the classes varied substantially and diferent classes occupied
diferent spaces within the Crystal Palace, with the respectable classes generally
gathering around the British Nave where John Bell’s Shakespeare Statue was
displayed. This changed during the last week of the Exhibition when the work-
ing classes congregated in that area to eat their packed lunches and nurse their
children.45
John Leech’s “Dinner-Time at the Crystal Palace” captures the working class
standing and sitting around the Shakespeare Statue (Figure 4.5). One woman with
a picnic lunch speaks to another who sits with breast exposed as she nurses her
baby. A man stands to the side as he pours some kind of spirit into a glass while
the woman next to him slumps against a plinth, either from too much drink or
from sheer exhaustion. Leech added “One touch of nature makes the whole world
kin” on the plinth, suggesting togetherness; there is no divide between Shakespeare
and the working class. In “The Pound and the Shilling” (Figure 4.6), the Duke of
Wellington, fanked by two fashionable ladies, meet the working class. The navvy
and carpenter, distinguished by their attire, appear confdent and do not step aside
or divert their gazes when in front of their “betters.” The outward appearance of
congenial class integration is deceiving.
Jefrey Auerback explains how the caption for this image can be read two ways:

“Whoever thought of meeting you here,” suggesting that the social classes in
Victorian England were generally segregated and that respectable society had
assumed the Crystal Palace to be part of their domain; or, “Whoever thought
of meeting you here,” meaning that there were places where the classes mingled,
but that respectable society did not consider the Crystal Palace to be one of
them.46

Leech’s Large Cuts manage to simultaneously promote and challenge the Great Exhi-
bition’s declaration of harmony between the classes. There was indeed cohesion,
however, tensions persisted. John Tallis, author of History and Description of the Crystal
Palace, claimed that “all social distinctions were for the moment merged in the general
feeling of pride and admiration at the wondrous result of science and labour” and that
“Never before in England had there been so free and general a mixture of classes as
82 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.5 “Dinner-time at the crystal palace” punch, vol. 21 (5 July 1851), p. 16.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

under that roof.”47 The geologist and palaeontologist Gideon Mantell, however, felt
diferently. He recorded in his diary that in the nave, he observed “many dirty women
with their infants, giving suck on the seats with their breasts uncovered” and that there
were many “vulgar, ignorant, country people” at the Crystal Palace. He grumbled at
the “truly absurd” idea that the “splendid, marvellous, incredible exhibition of nature
and art” could possibly be “appreciated by the ignorant mobs.”48
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 83

FIGURE 4.6 “The Pound and the Shilling” Punch, Vol. 20 (14 June 1851), p. 247.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

It is difcult to discern who is the target of ridicule in Leech’s “Dinner-Time

at the Crystal Palace” and “The Pound and the Shilling.” Are these images criticis-
ing the snobbery of the middle classes or simply trying to dispel anxieties of social
mixing between the classes? In reality, it is debatable whether the Exhibition was
84 “A Chinese Puzzle”

a success or failure in bringing together Britain as a nation, regardless of class or

regional diferences. Some hailed the event as a symbol of progress and technologi-
cal achievement that signifed class harmony. Others claimed that the event was for
the beneft of the middle and upper classes and most of the working class chose not
to attend while those living in impoverished conditions could not.49 When you
take into consideration the varying admission prices allowing those who wish to
separate themselves from the working class to visit on diferent days, visitor guides
instructing the working class how to behave,50 as well as snide remarks such as those
recorded by Mantell, class integration was clearly viewed with both suspicion and
apprehension.
The Great Exhibition was, however, consistent in its sense of nationalism and
a central theme that ran through the entire Exhibition was one of systematic clas-
sifcation. As an event with a strong educational component, knowledge about
diferent “types” of nations and their goods were highlighted in order to provide
Victorians with a particular narrative about Britain’s relations with its empire and
colonies. The Indian court was of extreme interest, and the display both supported
and legitimatised Britain’s possession of a disempowered nation. The object most
representative of British rule was the empty Indian royal throne that was placed at
the centre of the exhibition space. The seat of Indian power was, quite literally,
empty and thereby created an impression that it was up for the taking; this would
symbolically come to pass when Queen Victoria was declared Empress of India
in 1877.51 The Indian exhibit also shaped Victorian notions about the benefts of
colonial possession in providing raw materials. The display of the Koh-i-Noor,
the largest diamond in the world, was a sensation. The Crystal Palace emphasised
the “higher interest to the future destinies of our vast Indian empire” through the
development of railways and roads under British rule that would allow manufactur-
ers access to “cotton, sugar, rice, linseed, hemp, and other staples.”52
The Great Exhibition not only displayed technological achievements and manu-
factured goods, but visitors to the Crystal Palace were also, in a sense, put on
display. The Times reported, “the people have now become the exhibition”53 and
a central recurring theme was the “un-Britishness” of foreigners who came to
London. Some rejoiced in the potential to build international understanding and
cooperation. Richard Cobden, for example, hoped the Exhibition would usher
in an era of international peace and “break down barriers that have separated the
people of diferent nations, and witness the universal republic.”54 Others, however,
held foreigners with contempt and suspicion. Addressing the House of Commons
on 26 July 1850, Colonel Charles de Laet Waldo Sibthorp, the Tory M.P. from
Lincoln, expressed xenophobic sentiments as the reason to reject hosting the event

,An exhibition of the industry of all nations, forsooth! An exhibition of the

trumpery and trash of foreign countries. . . . They are fying in the face of
the rights of the public merely to gratify the foreigner, who had no right to be
here at all.55
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 85

A number of Britons were so concerned about the arrival of foreigners, they wrote
to the Duke of Wellington with suggestions such as keeping the navy on continual
patrol (especially around the coast of Ireland), cordoning of London, or increasing
police presence fourfolds.56
In “The Year of Expectations,” Horace Mayhew, was contemptuous of xeno-
phobic sentiments. He wrote,

Every bigotted Englishman, belonging to the fne old JOHN BULL

school . . . expects to see every foreigner with long moustachios, long beard,
and long hair, and dirty habits . . . and expects that London will be troubled
with nothing less than the Plague in consequence.57

Mayhew’s opinion was not, however, always in agreement with his colleagues at
Punch; John Leech, for example, held very diferent views. It was well known that
Leech disliked foreigners and while Mayhew ridiculed British fear of foreigners,
Leech provided a diferent perspective. In his “The Great Derby Race of 1851,” all
the nations of the world compete in the race for industrial advancement in front of
the Great Exhibition (Figure 4.7).
In the lead, and the clear winner, is Britain, represented by John Bull rid-
ing a bull, Joseph Paxton, the man who designed the Crystal Palace, running
along quick as lightning, and Mr. Punch, riding his dog Toby. Lagging behind

FIGURE 4.7 “The Great Derby Race for Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-One” Punch,
Vol. 20 (24 May 1851), pp. 213–215.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
86 “A Chinese Puzzle”

is the rest of the world, riding with determination on an assortment of animals

from girafes, elephants, ostriches, and camels. Set apart from the other nations
is China, represented by a fat Chinese man with his eyes closed to industrial
progress astride a pig who is facing the wrong direction. The crowd observing
this bizarre race is the English, standing united together on the sidelines. A man
in the crowd points to China while another throws his head back in laughter.
When it comes to technological advancement, it appears that China is nothing
more than a laughing stock.
China was the only nation that declined to participate and did not contribute
to the Great Exhibition. The China exhibit was therefore cobbled together by
organisers who relied on contributions from merchants trading in Canton as well
as private collectors. The result was an odd assortment of objects and the gen-
eral consensus was that the China display was the most disappointing of all the
nations.58 The refusal to take part in the event must have surprised the organisers
and brought back memories from previous non-cooperation when the Qianlong
Emperor rejected all British requests in the failed 1793 Macartney mission.59 The
Great Exhibition was intended to symbolise Western education and technologi-
cal advancements; it was also representative of free trade, an economic principle
believed to be an essential element for political liberty and international peace.60
China’s apparent disregard for these concepts was shocking; John R. Davis points
out, “this rejection seemed tantamount to a denial of a universal truth, and there-
fore both loathsome and absurd – and the Chinese . . . became the antiheroes of
the Exhibition.”61
Leech’s 1853 centrefold, titled “The Great Barbarian Dragon That Will Eat Up
‘The Brother of the Moon,’ &c. &c. &c.” (Figure 4.8) represents China ready to
battle Western notions of modernity and progress. In the background are familiar
symbols of “Chineseness” in the British imagination such as a pagoda, bridge with
three fgures holding lanterns, and a willow tree. In the foreground, a rotund Chi-
nese Emperor with his army of soldiers stand ready to fght against technological
advancement, represented by the train with the word “progress” clearly written
on the side. In the space between the front of the train and the Chinese army, a
Chinese man attempts to retreat from a pair of scissors poised to cut of his queue.
The queue, a characteristic Manchu male hairstyle, was a strong visual marker of
“Chineseness” and the artists at Punch frequently used this as an object of ridicule,
whether playfully or otherwise. The hairstyle was also an instantly recognisable
symbol that denotes diference.
Richard Doyle used the queue to represent China in “May Day, Eighteen
Hundred and Fifty-One.” Mr. Punch sits on a throne next to Lady Britannia, the
British Lion by her side and Toby, Mr. Punch’s faithful companion, next to him
(Figure 4.9). They observe the world coming to praise Britain’s industrial strength
as depicted by men from a multitude of nations, holding up an arm in reverence.
China is represented by two familiar symbols: tea and the queue. Unlike the other
nations who are struggling with the size of their crates full of goods, China only has
tea to ofer. At the front, a Chinese man in “traditional” Mandarin dress complete
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 87

FIGURE 4.8 “The Great Barbarian Dragon That Will Eat Up ‘The Brother of the
Moon,’ &c. &c. &c.” Punch, Vol. 25 (3 September 1853), pp. 98–99.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

with clog-style shoes and a conical hat, holds a tea set upon a tray and is unable to
move because of a dog pulling at his long queue. The queue was also used as part
of decorative initials that was interspersed within the pages of Punch; for example,
Gilbert à Beckett’s initial for “Magnetic Ministry” depicts a Chinese man reading a
newspaper, his queue fung over the letter “A” (Figure 4.10).
The history of the queue may not have been fully understood by most
Britons but its importance was known. British sailors on the H.M.S. Nemesis
knew the symbolic significance of the hairstyle when they cut them off of
the Chinese that surrendered during the First Opium War, aware that it was a
mark of deep disgrace. In 1858, the British again used the cutting of queues to
humiliate who they deemed to be troublemakers in Canton.62 Punch’s textual
commentaries on the Chinese frequently played on the word “tail” for come-
dic effect; however, the play on words also resulted in giving this hairstyle
“resonances of animality.”63 The queue was a distinguishing and familiar visual
feature of what it meant to be Chinese and it served as a powerful symbol of
difference, immediately separating the Chinese from the British. Differences
in tastes were also highlighted. Figure 4.11 depicts a London dining room
where a server repeats the order of a Chinese customer, “very nice Birds’ Nest
Soup, Sir! – Yes, Sir! Rat Pie, Sir, Just up. – Yes, Sir! – And a nice little Dog
to foller – Yes, Sir!”64 To the right, an English gentleman with his wife looks
startled at the scene before them.
88 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.9 “May Day, Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-One”Punch, Vol. 20 (3 May 1851),
pp. 179–181.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Punch’s representations of China and the Chinese during the Great Exhibition
ofer a diferent perspective when compared to the magazine’s portrayal of the
British working class. While both take a condescending tone, the Chinese were so
very “Other” in their physiognomy, fashion, and tastes and became part of Punch’s
repertoire of the foreign spectacle, in which the imagined reader would not relate
nor be able to identify with. These “Chinese characteristic traits” were based on
stereotypes, which the magazine happily reinforced and maintained, but what hap-
pens when these systems of classifcation are suddenly disrupted? The appearance
of He-Sing, a Chinese man mistaken for a Mandarin at the opening ceremonies
of the Crystal Palace on 30 April 1851 unsettled rigid class markers. Dressed in
embroidered silk, nobody knew who He-Sing was but the sight of him greeting
the Duke of Wellington led people to believe that he was a Chinese Mandarin.
During the singing of the Hallelujah chorus, He-Sing suddenly, and to eve-
ryone’s amusement, jostled his way to the front of the throne and began bow-
ing repeatedly to Queen Victoria. As his identity remained unknown, He-Sing
formed part of the procession and was included in the ofcial watercolour that
commemorated the event.65 It was not until the ceremonies were over that it
became known that He-Sing was not a Mandarin at all but a resident on the Chi-
nese junk Keying moored in the Thames and was only trying to drum up business
by attending the Great Exhibition.66 William Thackeray recorded the event by
commenting, “There was a Chinese with a face like a pantomime mask . . . who
went up and kissed the Duke of Wellington much to the old boy’s surprise, and
the Queen looked not uninteresting (sic).”67
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 89

FIGURE 4.10 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 24 (18 June 1853), p. 249.

Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
90 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.11 “London Dining Rooms, 1851” Punch Almanack for 1851, n.p.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Gilbert à Beckett’s summary of events took on a tone of indignation:

At the conclusion of the ceremonial, a Chinese, carried away, or rather

pushed forward, by his enthusiasm, performed suddenly, before HER MAJ-
ESTY, an elaborate salaam, consisting of a sudden act of prostration on his
face, and when the individual rose up, the custom at once occurred to us as
the cause of the general fatness of features and particular squareness of nose
of that fowery people, who, from their countenance, appear to have been
sown broad-cast over a large tract of country.68

The description of He-Sing performing “an elaborate salaam” pokes fun at what
Europeans call the kowtow. Much like China’s “non-cooperation” in refusing to
participate in the Great Exhibition, the kowtow was a signifcant gesture that encap-
sulated contentions in Sino-British relations that dated back to Lord Macartney’s
embassy to the Qianlong court in 1793. For Britons, the kowtow stood in polar
opposition to “the Victorian gentleman and maker of empire” who was always
represented as “stalwartly upright, touching the ground with more than one knee
only when wounded or dead at the hands of savage barbarians.”69 In 1851, the
kowtow, seen as a quintessentially Chinese gesture, came to Britain, in the midst of
London, and at the heart of an event celebrating progress and modernity.70
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 91

The arrival of a performing Chinese family around the corner from the Great
Exhibition provided another unsettling occasion when class boundaries were
blurred. The Illustrated London News described the family encompassing “a Chinese
Lady, named Pwan-ye-Koo, with small lotus-feet only 2½ inches in length, a Chi-
nese professor of music, his two children (a boy and a girl), the femme de chamber
of the lady, and an interpreter” who are credited for presenting “an image in high
relief of the native manners of a Chinese family.”71 Mayhew wrote in Punch:

We confess the Chinese Lady, at the Chinese collection, is a Chinese Puzzle

to us. We do not deny her Celestial beauty – nor do we deny the smallness
of her foot. Her singing, also, is as perfect as Chinese singing can be; but we
are puzzled as to the fact of her being “a lady of quality.” We are told that she
occupied a very fashionable position at Canton, where she was the belle for
one of two seasons. This is a puzzle to us. We cannot understand how “a
Lady of Quality” can lend herself to a shilling exhibition.72

The focus and primary concern was whether or not Pwan-ye-Koo was “a lady of
quality,” a reputation called into question due to her apparent willingness to display
herself for a shilling in a foreign land.

In another report about the Chinese family, Gilbert à Beckett asks readers
to imaginehis Lordship, or any other nobleman, taking out a quantity of
upholstery, with his wife and children, and sitting in the ‘family of rank’ that
are honouring us with a long visit – in return for our shillings – at Hyde
Park Corner.

à Beckett ridiculed the idea that “mandarins and persons of rank in China” would
actually travel to London in order to “condescend to make shows of themselves.”73
The tone of indignation suggests the importance placed on maintaining cer-
tain codes of behaviour appropriate to one’s social status. à Beckett claimed that
“London is beginning to be regularly overrun with Chinese, either genuine or
otherwise” and “there ought to be some authority given to detect a counterfeit
Chinaman . . . by snipping of his tail, or trying the efect of soap and water on his
countenance.”74
He-Sing, as one of the “counterfeit Chinaman,” managed to fool the Queen
and Pwan-ye-Koo was reputed to be a “lady of quality,” both were considered an
afront to established social hierarchies. While the working class in Britain were
easily identifable by mannerisms and dress, He-Sing and Pwan-ye-Koo unsettled
social boundaries by masquerading as their “betters” and successfully deceiving the
Britons they encountered. Much the same as Cetewayo and George Du Maurier’s
Japanese man dressed in Western clothing that were discussed in the previous chap-
ter. He-Sing and the Chinese family provoked the ire of the men at Punch by not
only fooling the Queen and country with apparent ease but also most signifcantly,
by disrupting established social and racial boundaries.
92 “A Chinese Puzzle”

The radical edge that Punch provided in the 1840s in their fght for social jus-
tice, especially for those most vulnerable in society, started to subside by the 1850s;
certainly by the 1860s, the tone and content celebrated “Englishness.” The addition
of George Du Maurier as a Punch staf member in 1864 confrmed the magazine’s
consistency in providing amusing comments not just on rules of conduct adhered
to by the middle and upper classes, but also on the weird absurdities of those who
did not belong.75 Du Maurier provided readers with possibilities of horror when
things move beyond their assigned categories. His series of nightmarish cartoons,
such as “The Keeper’s Nightmare” (Figure 4.12) depicts a selection of fantastical
and horrifc beasts. Illustrated as a response to the Acclimatisation Society, which
promoted the acclimatisation of animals and plants brought to Britain from other
countries, the cartoon plays with the idea of animals mixing and breeding, and
provides terrifying results of what could happen if Britain allows strange intrusions
and an acceptance to those who defy assigned categories.76
The Great Exhibition introduced British men and women of all classes to ideas
of empire by showcasing maps, objects, and human bodies, into a categorisation
system.77 Visitors had the opportunity to see not only manufactured goods on dis-
play but also people of diverse races and nations who came to London for the event.
These visuals, as exhibition and human displays, blurred the boundary between
exhibition and entertainment as well as reality and representation.78 Punch’s reports
on the Great Exhibition maintained unifed symbols of “Britishness” and created a
bond, imagined or otherwise, in which all Britons could identify with. Perceived

FIGURE 4.12 “The Keeper’s Nightmare” Punch Almanack for 1871, n.p.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 93

shared sense of values and codes of conduct were demarcations that attempted to
identify who “we” were while separating those who could never be a part of “us.”79
While light-hearted in tone, Punch could “never really rid itself of the accusation
that its great shaking of hands was becoming a great shaking of fsts”80 and this
“shaking of fsts” would become more vigorous during Britain’s armed confict
with China in the Second Opium War.

The Second Opium War

Negating China and the Chinese

In January 1857, Tom Taylor wrote for Punch a series of letters between Ye Min-
gchen, acting British Consul Harry Smith Parkes, and other involved British of-
cials during the Arrow dispute, which subsequently culminated into the Second
Opium War. Hostilities began when Chinese ofcials, under the direction of
Imperial Commissioner Ye boarded a Hong Kong registered vessel named Arrow
while it was docked in Canton and arrested several of its Chinese crew on suspicion
of smuggling. British ofcials demanded their release and an apology for the insult
made to the British fag, to which the Qing ofcials refused. What resulted was a
back-and-forth with Parkes demanding an apology and Ye insisting that there was
no insult and therefore no need for an apology.81 In one of Taylor’s satirical letters,
Admiral Michael Seymour writes to Parkes, “I am really ashamed to go on pitch-
ing into these helpless Chinamen in this style, especially while they are in the right
and we in the wrong” and asks, “if I must give them more powder and shot, can’t
you manage to fnd me a decent excuse?” In another letter to Parkes, John Bow-
ring, Governor of Hong Kong, declares the war against the Chinese unjustifed
and concludes, “in an ancient Spartan or a modern Swiss, YEH’s conduct might
be called heroic. In a Chinaman it is culpably obstinate and cannot be submitted
to for a moment.”82
The letters point to Taylor’s sympathies, which lay with China; the satirical let-
ters indicate that Parkes and Bowring were provoking hostilities and Ye was doing
his best to fnd a compromise. This stance would change in the coming weeks as the
textual and visual satire created by Taylor and his colleagues at Punch sided with Lord
Palmerston’s war-mongering rhetoric that won over public opinion. Not all the
men, however, were in agreement. Douglas Jerrold was a friend of Richard Cob-
den, the most notable supporter of Ye who strongly opposed the British policy of
attacking China.83 In June 1849, Cobden proposed in the House of Commons the
adoption of the principle of arbitration as a means of protesting against violence and
massacres, whether at home or abroad. He was defeated but Jerrold wrote fondly of
the eforts made by his friend in Punch: “the olive twig, planted by Mr. Cobden in
Westminster, will fourish despite the blighting wit of mess-rooms, and will rise and
spread into a tree that shall ofer shade and security for all nations.”84
In Parliament, Cobden led a long debate with the opposition led by Lord Palm-
erston, who believed that issues in China were best solved through military action.
The “China Question” became a contentious issue and captured the interest of
94 “A Chinese Puzzle”

the public. The Daily News declared that the “debates on the Canton hostilities
have produced a profound impression on the English mind. The moral sense of
the country is aroused; the common sense of the country is up in arms.”85 In order
to persuade the British people, Palmerston’s political rhetoric was laden with stark
nationalism; he knew the power of arousing the emotions rather than the intellect
of the British people, a lesson he learned during the Don Pacifco afair of 1850.
In a famous speech, commended by Prince Albert as a “masterpiece” of rhetoric,
Palmerston declared:

just as a Roman could claim his rights anywhere in the world with the words
“Civis Romanus sum” [“I am a Roman citizen”], so also a British subject, in
whatever land he may be, shall feel confdent that the watchful eye and the
strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong.86

Palmerston hit upon a magic ingredient in appealing to the emotions of the Brit-
ish public through nationalist sentiments in order to garner support. It was not the
long and tedious debates that were closely followed by the British public; rather,
it was the fervour of nationalist sentiment that Palmerston was successfully able to
drum up. In March 1857, Ponny Mayhew characterised the China debate in Par-
liament as the “Turner Collection” “considering the number of gentlemen who
turned their coats on that occasion.”87 It was the astute observations of Taylor
and Percival Leigh, however, that accurately accessed the mood of public interest
in the China debate. Taylor wrote “Is Lord Palmerston wrong in supporting his
subordinates at Canton? Cobden says ‘Yeh.’ The Country will say ‘Nay.’”88 Leigh
put it more bluntly. In a short pun titled “A Tiresome Debate,” he wrote that the
“Chinese controversy has been altogether a Bo(w)ring discussion.”89 John Wong
asserts that the British public had little interest in following the debate in Parlia-
ment; instead, he says, “What people wanted was sensation, and Palmerston was
going to give them plenty of that.”90
Palmerston was skilled at manipulating the press, ofering journalists, newspa-
per editors, and proprietors privileged information, access to people, as well as
fnancial bribes in order to secure support at home over his foreign policies.91 His
opponents understood the power in managing the press as well as the intercon-
nection between the press and the public; however, they also realised Palmerston’s
uncontested mastery in this arena. Cobden wondered,

How many public men who have ambitions to gratify will range themselves
alongside of us so long as the Press is thus opposed to them? To change the
Press we must change public opinion. And, mind, when I speak of the Press
I speak of those weekly papers which are really supported by the people.92

He unsuccessfully attempted to persuade public opinion through the Morning Star but
his eforts were, quite simply, deemed “anti-British” and therefore made little impact.93
It is doubtful that Cobden was surprised by the public reaction. Ten years
previously, in an 1847 letter to John Bright, Cobden wrote of the “pugnacious,
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 95

energetic, self-sufcient, foreigner-despising, and pitying character of the noble

insular creature John Bull.”94 In Punch, Cobden’s political reputation sufered
under the magazine’s constant attacks. Punch equated a vote for Cobden to a
vote against England. A “Chinese Election Song” warns that a “vote for COB-
DEN, DIS, and Co.” would “procure PAM’s overthrow” and result in a humili-
ating scenario where “Our feet [would] retreat” and “JOHN BULL shall do
koutou to YEH!”95
Punch’s shift in tone and attitude towards China and the Chinese became noticeably
acrimonious by the end of the Second Opium War and coincided with major Lon-
don papers that adopted an aggressive stance against China. Only more radical papers
argued that “Palmerstonian Mania” was sheer stupidity.96 Others, such as The Times,
experienced a change in tone. The Times was initially hostile towards Palmerston but
this changed by 1855 after John Delane became editor and thought it might be detri-
mental to the newspaper to be excluded from newsworthy sources. Delane decided to
support Palmerston on “his policy upon which the country as a whole was agreed.”97
On 5 January 1857, the newspaper made its stance on “the China Question” by
declaring, “the violence and bigotry of local governors was hindering Britain’s com-
mercial aims and was the reason for the outbreak of the confict.”98
In March 1857, Taylor penned a parody of Alfred Tennyson’s Maud; the satirical
poem, “An Invitation,” praises Palmerston. The last stanza reads:

It is coming, and many a seat

Is aquake with anxious dread!
Old Pam they intended to beat,
But he’ll lick them instead.
Old Pam they intended to beat;
But England indignant will tread
Cobden, Dizzy, and Gladstone under her feet,
And set Pam at the Ministry’s head!99

The laurel accompanies a Large Cut of John Bull sympathetically encouraging a

worn-out Palmerston to take a rest in the countryside, away from “those Cobden
fellows” (Figure 4.13). In the same volume, Leigh wrote a blatantly nationalistic
and xenophobic pun to be sung to the tune of the ballad, Haul away boys.100 The
frst stanza emphasises Cobden’s supposed unpatriotic perspective on the China
debate:

RICHARD COBDEN has a knack,

Talk away, YEH-O, boys!
Of hauling down the Union Jack,
Assailed by any foe, boys.
Come POPE, come CZAR, come Savage – why
I know not, still his best he’ll try
To make old England’s colours lie
In degradation low, boys.101
96 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.13 “An Invitation” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 March 1857), p. 105.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

John Leech’s cartoons supported Palmerston’s jingoism. His “The Great Chinese
Warriors Dah-Bee and Cob-Den” (Figure 4.14) represent Richard Cobden and
the Earl of Derby as Chinese warriors. Pro-China was placed in binary opposition
to Pro-Britain and the two politicians were represented as fghting for the Chinese
and thereby, against the British. The battle cry of “Boh! Hea!” and “Pee! Koe!”
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 97

FIGURE 4.14 “The Great Chinese Warriors Dah-Bee and Cob-Den” Punch, Vol. 32 (7
March 1857), p. 95.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

play on two British favourite Chinese teas and Palmerston is depicted rolling up
his sleeve for a fght, visibly un-amused at the possibility of losing his position in
Parliament.
More condemnatory is Leech’s Large Cut, “A Lesson to John Chinaman.” The
cartoon depicts Mr. Punch standing alongside Palmerston, holding a cat o’nine
tails about to bring down upon a Chinese man with a placard reading “The
Destroyer of Women and Children.” “Give it him well, Pam, while you are about
it!” says Mr. Punch with approval (Figure 4.15). In another half-page cartoon,
Palmerston points towards a group of “kidnapping, murdering, poisoning” Chi-
nese, with one man about to throw a baby of a clif. In the background, buildings
are ablaze in a scene of total chaos and Cobden is depicted looking horrifed while
clutching a statue of Buddha (Figure 4.16). In Parliament, Palmerston attacked
Cobden for his “anti-English feeling” and argued that a motion of censure meant
that Britain had “abandon a large community of British subjects at the extreme
end of the globe to a set of barbarians – a set of kidnapping, murdering, poison-
ing barbarians.”102 His tactic proved successful; Palmerston won by a majority and
Cobden, along with those who supported peace with China, lost their seats for
being “un-English.”103
98 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.15 “A Lesson to John Chinaman” Punch, Vol. 32 (9 May 1857), p. 185.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

With Palmerston’s majority government, Britain went to war with China. Cob-
den wrote to Bright, “I consider that we as a nation are little better than brigands,
murderers, and poisoners, in our dealings at this moment with half the population
of the globe.”104 During the Parliamentary debates, Punch began vilifying the Chi-
nese and this negation increased with open hostilities between Britain and China.
In February 1857, Jerrold pinpointed the shift towards sinophobia due to the fact
that, he claimed, Britons came to “know” the Chinese character:

The Chinaman has gone down somewhat in the estimation of the thought-
ful Briton since GOLDSMITH wrote the Citizen of the World. Then, and
before then, the Chinese were the most virtuous and the most wonderful of
people, because they were utterly unknown. They were painted under the
most extravagant forms and in the brightest colours, even as they paint their
own china; but even as china becomes fawed and breaks, even so has JOHN
CHINAMAN gone, in our opinion, smash. The philanthropist has been
found to be as cruel as a cat; the sage has the guile, the petty larceny of a mag-
pie, the man of meekness the obstinacy of a hog. Even as we have sweetened
Chinese tea, so have we, of our own liberality, sweetened Chinese character.
Let us set aside the saccharine, and judge the pekoe in its native bitterness.105
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 99

FIGURE 4.16 “What Can You Say for Your Friends Now, Richard?” Punch, Vol. 32 (9
May 1857), p. 184.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Shirley Brooks was equally scathing in his assessment. In his report of Parliamentary
proceedings, he claimed that

noble lords who talked of the innocent, polite, and friendly Chinese, had
never heard that in Canton itself Mr. Commissioner Yeh had tied up thou-
sands of men and women at this place of execution, and had them fayed
alive, and cut into slices.

He noted, “To these people it was urged that we were to serve out ‘justice in its
most winning guise, and lofty truth and forbearance.’”106
In April 1858, Taylor wrote “A Chanson for Canton” to accompany a depiction
of a fat Chinese mandarin swaggering across a willow-pattern background with a
servant following closely behind (Figure 4.17).
100 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.17 “A Chanson for Canton” Punch, Vol. 34 (10 April 1858), p. 151.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 101

JOHN CHINAMAN a rogue is born,

The laws of truth he holds in scorn;
About as great a brute as can
Encumber the Earth is JOHN CHINAMAN.
Sing YEH, my cruel JOHN CHINAMAN,
Sing YEO, my stubborn JOHN CHINAMAN;
Not COBDEN himself can take of the ban
By humanity laid on JOHN CHINAMAN.

With their little pig-eyes and their large pig-tails,

And their diet of rats, dogs, slugs, and snails,
All seems to be game in the frying-pan
Of that nasty feeder, JOHN CHINAMAN.
Sing lie-tea, my sly JOHN CHINAMAN
No fghtee, my coward JOHN CHINAMAN:
JOHN BULL has a chance – let him, if he can,
Somewhat open the eyes of JOHN CHINAMAN.107

The Second Opium War was grounded on the idea that Britain was admin-
istering “justice” to a savage nation populated by cruel and barbaric people. The
viewpoint and criticism of China as a backward civilisation ftted into nineteenth
century ideas about progress, society, and history that were expounded by well-
respected intellectuals and thinkers of the time. John Stuart Mill believed that the
Chinese had “no history” having been “stationary” for thousands of years and “if
they are ever to be improved, it must be by foreigners.”108 Palmerston believed that

These half-civilised governments such as those in China Portugal and Spanish

America all require a Dressing every eight or Ten years to keep them in order.
Their minds are too shallow to receive an Impression that will last longer than
some such Period and warning is of little use. They care little for words and
they must not only see the Stick but actually feel it on their Shoulders.109

When Lord Elgin arrived in China in 1858, British imperialism was in a fervour
following the Sepoy Mutiny in India and a heavy-handed approach was thought
needed when up against disobedience.110 After a series of naval skirmishes, Brit-
ish and French forces seized Guangzhou, captured the unfortunate Ye Mingchen,
and started north to secure ratifcation of the Treaty of Tianjin, which granted the
foreign powers all of their demands.111
Punch marked the quick victory along with the expected treaty ratifcations
as an occasion worthy of a Large Cut. In John Tenniel’s “A Little Tea Party,” the
allegorical fgures of Britain and France drink gunpowder tea, a British favourite
(Figure 4.18). They sit somewhere in China, symbolised by the familiar willow-
pattern design on the table and nonsensical “Chinese characters” on the tablecloth.
102 “A Chinese Puzzle”

FIGURE 4.18 “A Little Tea Party” Punch, Vol. 35 (4 September 1858), p. 97.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

There are holes in the wall, indicating the recent war. Britannia stands with a small
canon-shaped teapot and ofers a cup to the rotund Chinese Mandarin who looks
horrifed at the suggestion of more battles with the British. His long, pointed
moustache stands on end in comedic theatrical fashion to indicate his alarm. “A lit-
tle more gunpowder, Mr. China?” asks Britannia. “O-No-Tan-Ke-Mum” replies
Mr. China. The message is clear: China had taken enough from the triumphant
British.
In June 1859, the British minister in China and Elgin’s younger brother, Fred-
erick Bruce, went north to ratify the terms of the Treaty of Tianjin. He sailed “in
grand style and the route chosen looked like war”112 and in response, the Qing
government refused his entry into the capital. Bruce responded by opening fre and
to the shock of the British and French troops, the Chinese troops fred back kill-
ing 519 and wounding 456 British sailors and soldiers.113 Events quickly escalated;
Lord Elgin was once again brought in, more fghting ensued, the British-French
troops won the battle, then proceeded to march to Beijing. The Qing court sued
for peace but to complicate matters, Harry Parkes and a group under a fag of truce
were captured during the confict and ill-treated, resulting in the death of half of
the entourage.114
Punch voiced its outrage with John Tenniel’s Large Cut titled, “What We
Ought to Do in China” (Figure 4.19).115 The cartoon depicts a British warrior
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 103

FIGURE 4.19 “What We Ought to Do in China” Punch, Vol. 39 (22 December 1860),
p. 245.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

on horseback, with ball and chain in hand, he takes aim at a Chinese dragon,
which cowers and slinks away. The Chinese are depersonalised and turned into
a grotesque creature; reminiscent of the opinions of Mill and Palmerston, China
is represented in need of foreign intervention in order to learn to behave in
104 “A Chinese Puzzle”

a civil manner. The violent “whipping” that Punch advocated was realised; in
October 1860, Lord Elgin carried out a punitive mission in which a beautiful
complex of palaces called yuanmingyuan, known in English as the Summer Palace,
was looted and burned to the ground. The Palace was the private property of the
Emperor of China and thus Elgin believed that its destruction would be a “blow
to his pride as well as his feelings” and “its loss would not be punishment directed
at the blameless Chinese people.” He posted in public places the cause and reason
for the destruction in Chinese as explanation to the Chinese people.116 Garnet
Wolseley, the quartermaster-general for the British contingent, insisted that the
only way was to attack the “great vulnerable point in the Mandarin’s character:
his pride.”117
Over three days, thousands of men wrought havoc to the palace and its grounds
until it lay in devastation.118 Victor Hugo was horrifed at the destruction by Anglo-
French forces and famously wrote:

We Europeans, we are the civilised and for us, the Chinese are the barbarians.
This is what civilization has done to barbarism. History will call one of the
bandits France and the other England.119

Lord Elgin wrote in his diary, “I never felt so ashamed of myself in my life” and
sick with depression, he was carried in a sedan chair by sixteen Chinese men
to the tune of “God Save the Queen” to the treaty ratifcation ceremony.120
Elgin was a fascinating contradictory character that ft well into the paradoxical
nature and complicity between imperialism and liberalism that dominated Brit-
ish political thought in the Victorian era. While his early education shaped his
beliefs in universal equality and liberty, these notions needed to fuctuate when
they came into confict with the interests of the British Empire.121
His mission to China and its catastrophic consequences rekindled memories of
Elgin’s father, the Seventh Earl of Elgin, who removed the marble sculptures from
the Parthenon in Athens half a century earlier.122 This connection was not lost on
Punch. Tenniel’s “New Elgin Marbles”123 depicts Lord Elgin standing authoritatively
with his new “marbles” (Figure 4.20). The cartoon can be read two ways: Lord Elgin
stands with a cannon ball, threatening China to heel or face further violent hostilities;
or, Lord Elgin stands with an opium ball, commanding obedience in order to re-
establish trade. Either way, one thing is clear in the cartoon and that is China, dehu-
manised and animalistic, needed both training and supervision by an English master.
In regard to the behaviour of the British and French forces, Punch’s reporting
gave no indication of sympathy towards China or shock at the destruction of the
Summer Palace. The frst page of its 1861 publication, “Our Own Correspond-
ent at the Seat of War,” serves as an eulogy to Thomas Bowlby, a popular Brit-
ish correspondent for The Times and one of the members of Parkes’ entourage
who did not survive. It references the events concerning the destruction of the
Summer Palace in the way Bowlby would have reported, should he still have
been alive:
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 105

FIGURE 4.20 “New Elgin Marbles” Punch, Vol. 39 (24 November 1860), p. 206.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
106 “A Chinese Puzzle”

How eagerly should we have read his description of the Summer Palace, with
its glittering fountains, its miles of terraces, its wondrous gardens, and the
more than barbaric luxury and glitter within! How vigorously he would have
recounted the sack and burning of this fanciful and costly structure! . . . But
this was not to be; and just as his tale was awaited here with the greatest
expectation, and had aroused the greatest interest, the narrator was struck
cruelly down.124

There is a clear lack of shock or dismay in the way the British military handled
themselves; in fact, the sentiment coincides with Elgin’s and Wolseley’s belief in the
necessity of destruction of the “barbaric luxury” and “fanciful and costly structure”
in order to strike at the pride of the Chinese Emperor.
Other reports in Punch trivialised the looting and razing of the Summer Palace.
Ponny wrote a pun, “Destroying the Enemy’s Works” that quipped, “At the sack
of the Emperor’s Palace at Pekin, a number of valuable watches and clocks were
destroyed. We suppose the soldiers did it as an amusement merely by way of killing
time.”125 The fippant tone dismissed the devastating wrought upon an architectural
wonder and justifed the action by portraying the “real” perpetrators of crime as
the Chinese. The reduction of such an act to trivial merry-making maintained that
there would be no apologies and no regrets.126 As for Elgin, his return to Britain
was greeted with much fan-fare. In January 1861, Brooks’ penned a short poetic
blurb titled, “A Cheer for Elgin.”

He has done his work featly, adroitly, completely,

So saith Mr. Punch, unaccustomed to fatter;
And except that the welkin don’t rhyme to LORD ELGIN,
The former should ring with the praise of the latter.127

A few months later in April, Brooks’ popular “Essence of Parliament” reported,

“the victorious ELGIN, home from China, made his appearance, and was
cheered by his Peers.”128 Indeed, when Elgin returned to Britain, he discov-
ered that he was aggrandised in public and had become a social and political
celebrity.129
At the end of the Second Opium War, the British emerged victorious. The
terms of the Treaty of Tianjin included the opening of several new ports to West-
ern trade and residence, freedom of movement for Christian missionaries, and the
imposition of an enormous indemnity upon China. Punch was particularly pleased
with the “handsome indemnity” China was obliged to pay.130 In January 1861,
an angry Chinese man kneels in front of a displeased Britannia, ofering a sizable
willow-patterned teacup piled high with silver taels in “The Real Barbarian From
China”131 (Figure 4.21). The caption references Article 51 in the treaty stipulating
that British ofcials and subjects of the Crown were henceforth outlawed from
being referred to as “barbarian,” a point of contention that had been building up
for some time.
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 107

FIGURE 4.21 “The Real Barbarian from China” Punch, Vol. 40 (5 January 1861), p. 5.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

In James Matheson’s 1836 book, The Present Position and Prospect of Our Trade with
China, he complained that the Chinese used the word yi in ofcial documents to
refer to the British. Matheson argued that yi translated to mean “barbarian” and that
its use was insulting to British national honour. It symbolised just how terrible the
British were treated by the Chinese and was used as evidence of China’s contempt of
foreigners, rejection of free trade, and concepts of modern civilisation, thereby hin-
dering the prosperity of British commerce. Matheson used the word yi to persuade
the British government to go to war with China.132 The Treaty of Tianjin’s Article 51
became the frst international treaty to ban a foreign word from its own language.133
From the 1840s until the end of the 1860s, Punch’s “initial playful seriousness
became serious playfulness.”134 References to the Chinese became increasingly ven-
omous, in particular when the magazine decided to vigorously support Palmerston
in his campaign for war against China. The radicalism of the early years when
Punch attempted to be the voice of the poor and powerless and engage in a healthy
dose of self-criticism subsided into nationalist sentiments and a belief in Britain’s
superiority over other nations and races. The Great Exhibition revealed anxieties
not just of class and racial disruptions at home, but also refected wider anxieties
of Britain own self-perception and position vis-à-vis the global community. The
negative representations of China were therefore important in the production of
108 “A Chinese Puzzle”

both a British identity as well as a superior national identity. By 1865, Palmerston

was dead, followed fve years later by Punch editor and co-founder Mark Lemon.
From Lemon’s death until the end of the Victorian period, three men with dif-
ferent political outlooks took up the position of the editor but the magazine was
consistent in its general negation of China and the Chinese. The following chapter
will examine how Punch used China to both express geopolitical concerns as well
as refect anxieties over Britain’s position as a global imperial player.

Notes
1 Name taken from “A Chinese Puzzle” Punch, Vol. 21 (1851), p. 19.
2 “The Happy Family in Hyde Park” Punch, Vol. 21 (19 July 1851), p. 36.
3 Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 159.
4 Edward Ziter, The Orient on the Victorian Stage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003), p. 107.
5 Anne Veronica Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark “Chinoiserie”: Limehouse Nights and the
Queer Spell of Chinatown (Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009), p. 42.
6 Richard D. Altick, The Shows of London (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1978), p. 292.
7 William B. Langdon, London’s curator for the show, extended the original catalogue
titled Ten Thousand Chinese Things, to include commentaries from China experts and
sold more than three hundred thousand copies of which there were several editions
between 1842 and 1844. See Pagani, “Objects and the Press,” pp. 150–151.
8 Altick, The Shows of London, p. 335.
9 Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark “Chinoiserie,” p. 42.
10 Altick, The Shows of London, p. 335.
11 Pagani, “Chinese Material Culture and British Perceptions of China in the Mid-Nine-
teenth Century,” p. 35.
12 Nathan Dunn and William B. Langdon, “Ten Thousand Chinese Things”: A Descriptive
Catalogue of the Chinese (London, England, 1843), p. 14.
13 Illustrated London News, No. 13 (6 August 1842), pp. 204–205.
14 “The Chinese Exhibition at Knightsbridge” Punch, Vol. 3 (1842), p. 197.
15 Punch’s Guide to the Chinese Exhibition at Knightsbridge (London, 1842), p. 12, p. 31.
16 “The Chinese Exhibition at Knightsbridge” Punch Vol. 3 (1842), p. 196.
17 James L. Hevia, Cherishing Men from Afar (Durham; London: Duke University Press,
1995), pp. 73–74.
18 Blue, “China and Western Social Thought in the Modern Period,” p. 73.
19 “Punch Among the Celestials” Punch, Vol. 15 (1848), p. 12.
20 London Illustrated News (29 August 1851), p. 148, p. 179.
21 Hector Berlioz, Evenings With the Orchestra, translated by Jacques Barzun (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1956), pp. 246–250.
22 Altick, The Shows of London, p. 463.
23 “The Peace with China” Punch, Vol. 3 (1842), p. 237.
24 “The Queen’s Speech – Peace with China” Punch, Vol. 3 (1842), p. 56.
25 Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark “Chinoiserie,” p. 55.
26 Samuel Phillips Day, Tea: Its Mystery and History (London: Simpin, Marshall & Co.,
1878), p. 71.
27 Day, Tea, p. 70.
28 John Burnett, Plenty & Want: A Social History of Diet in England From 1815 to the Present
Day (London: Scolar Press, 1979), diet of poor labourers, p. 17; consumption of tea per
annum per head, p. 131.
29 Burnett, Plenty & Want, p. 132.
30 “The Peace with China” Punch, Vol. 3 (1842), p. 237.
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 109

31 Punch was not alone in their use of satirical wit to criticise Britain’s desire for a free
market economy in China. The Comic Album: A Book for Every Table of 1842 published
a satirical poem titled “The Chinese War” that was later re-published in the Illustrated
London News of 10 December 1842: “With this nation so deluded/Peace is happily
concluded:/Let us now no longer teaze/The unfortunate Chinese./We are ready to
befriend them;/Cotton night-gowns we will send them;/For their use we will import/
Articles of every sort . . . /Everything, in fact, to please/And enlighten the Chinese,/
England, this time forth supplies them./Only just to civilize them.” See “The Chinese
War” The Comic Album: A Book for Every Table (London: Orr and Co., 1842) cited in
Pagani “Objects and the Press” p. 149; Pagani, “Chinese Material Culture” p. 32.
32 “Peace with the Pig-Tails” Punch, Vol. 3 (1842), p. 238.
33 Dominic Janes, “The Role of Visual Appearance in Punch’s Early Victorian Satires on
Religion” Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 67–68.
34 “Business and The Bayonet” Punch, Vol. 19 (1850), p. 234.
35 The plight of needlewomen has been a Punch cause over numerous years. Victorian
needlewomen were usually uneducated and without family support. Their low pay and
appalling work and living conditions shocked the public and resulted in many short sto-
ries, plays, and poetry – the most famous being Thomas Hood’s “The Song of the Shirt”
frst published in Punch in December 1843. For more on the Victorian needlewomen, see
Beth Harris, “ ‘Slaves of the Needle’: The Seamstress in the 1840s” (14 December 2014),
The Victorian Web. Online: http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/ugoretz1.html.
36 Matthewson, “Satirising Imperial Anxiety in Victorian Britain,” pp. 9–13.
37 Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 1.
38 Message and Johnston, “The World Within the City,” pp. 33–34.
39 Diana J. Reynolds, “The Great Exhibition of 1851 – Interpretive Essay” Events That
Changed Great Britain Since 1689 (eds.) Frank W. Thackeray and John E. Findling (West-
port, CT; London: Greenwood, 2002), p. 100.
40 Frederick William of Prussia to the Prince Consort, 8 April 1851, Royal Archives Com-
missioners Records in the custody of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851,
Lowther Gardens, London, cited in Audrey Short, “Workers Under Glass in 1851”
Victorian Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2 (December 1966), p. 193.
41 Jefrey Auerbach, “The Great Exhibition and Historical Memory” Journal of Victorian
Culture, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2001), p. 102.
42 The Exhibition was from May to October 1851 and the admission fee dropped further
over the course of the exhibition. To put the pricing in perspective, Auerback references
“the skilled laborers at the Crystal Palace [who] were paid on average 28s a week.” See
Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, pp. 145–146.
43 There were several ways that classes segregated themselves. The trains coming into Lon-
don from various northern industrial areas had a strict division of coaches into frst,
second, and third classes. Another example is the opening ceremony of the Great Exhi-
bition, which the Royal Commission made a decision to exclude the public. For Lord
Palmerston, see Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 158. For division on trains,
see Clive Behagg, Labour and Reform: Working Class Movements 1815–1914 (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1991), pp. 76–78, cited in Steve Edwards, “The Accumulation
of Knowledge or, William Whewell’s Eye” The Great Exhibition of 1851: New Interdis-
ciplinary Essays (ed.) Louise Purbick (Manchester; New York: Manchester University
Press, 2001), p. 29. For the Royal Commission’s decision, see Peter Gurney, “An Appro-
priated Space: The Great Exhibition, the Crystal Palace and the Working Class” The
Great Exhibition of 1851: New Interdisciplinary Essays (ed.) Louise Purbick (Manchester;
New York: Manchester University Press, 2001), p. 119.
44 Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 139.
45 Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 155.
46 Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 154.
47 John Tallis, Tallis’s History and Description of the Crystal Palace, and the Exhibition of the
World’s Industry in 1851 (London; New York: J. Tallis and Co., 1851), Vol. 1, p. 102.
110 “A Chinese Puzzle”

48 Gideon Mantell, The Journal of Gideon Mantell, edited by E. Cecil Curwen (London:
Oxford University Press, 1940), pp. 273–274.
49 The Great Exhibition catering to the middle and upper classes is exemplifed by the
prize medals awarded at the event. The medals were inscribed in Latin, a language only
understood by the elite and in most cases, they were awarded to the entrepreneurs and
not the workers who actually produced the exhibit. See Auerback, The Great Exhibition
of 1851, p. 133; and, Gurney, “An Appropriated Space,” pp. 114–145.
50 Reynolds, “The Great Exhibition of 1851 – Interpretive Essay,” p. 101.
51 Adina Ciugureanu, “Mediating Between the Mass and the Individual: Punch Caricatures
of the Great Exhibition of All Nations” Gramma: Journal of Theory and Criticism, Vol. 18
(2010), p. 110.
52 The Crystal Palace and Its Contents; Being an Illustrated Cyclopaedia of the Great Exhibition
of the Industry of All Nations (London: W.M. Clark, 1852), p. 100, cited in Paul Young,
“Mission Impossible: Globalization and the Great Exhibition” Britain, the Empire, and the
World at the Great Exhibition of 1851 (eds.) Jefrey A. Auerbach and Peter H. Hofenberg
(London & New York: Ashgate Publishing, 2008), p. 17.
53 The Times (8 October 1851) cited in Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 158.
54 Cobden was speaking at a public meeting in Birmingham. Cited in Auerback, The Great
Exhibition of 1851, p. 163. In reality, how many foreigners actually attended the event is
questionable. Punch makes note of this in an article titled, “Where Are the Foreigners?”
See Punch, Vol. 20 (1851), p. 207.
55 Cited in Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, p. 93.
56 Auerback, The Great Exhibition of 1851, pp. 181–182.
57 “The Year of Expectations” Punch, Vol. 20 (1851), p. 104.
58 Auerbach, The Great Exhibition of 1851, p. 176.
59 Louise Tythacott, The Lives of Chinese Objects (New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), pp. 87–88.
60 Louise Purbrick, “Introduction” The Great Exhibition of 1851: New Interdisciplinary Essays
(ed.) Louise Purbick (Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press, 2001), p. 8.
61 John R. Davis, The Great Exhibition (Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999), p. 105. Tythacott
also claims that China emerged as the “antithesis of the country that hosted the Exhibi-
tion” in Tythacott, The Lives of Chinese Objects, p. 83.
62 The Chinese nationalist, Zou Rong brought attention to the British laughing at the
Chinese hairstyle in 1903 in The Revolutionary Army. He asks “When a man with a
queue and wearing Manchu clothes wanders around London, why do all the passers-by
say ‘Pig-tail’ or ‘Savage’?” See Michael R. Godley “The End of the Queue: Hair as Sym-
bol in Chinese History” China Heritage Quarterly, No. 27 (September 2011). Online:
http://www.chinaheritagequarterly.org.
63 Francesca Vanke, “Degrees of Otherness: The Ottoman Empire and China at the Great
Exhibition of 1851” Britain, the Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition of 1851 (eds.)
Jefrey A. Auerbach and Peter H. Hofenberg (Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ash-
gate Publishing Ltd., 2008), p. 203. Witchard notes that “Westerners perceived the pigtails
of Chinese men as an utter absurdity” in Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark ‘Chinoiserie’, p. 81.
64 “London Dining Rooms, 1851” Punch Almanack for 1851, Vol. 20, n.p.
65 Davis and Tythacott draw attention to the respect shown to He-Sing when it was
believed that he was a foreign representative at the event; thus, being Chinese did not
aford him any less respect as would be shown other foreign dignitaries. Edmund Yates
recorded events and claimed that He-Sing “being mistaken for a grandee, was received
with the greatest honour, and had one of the best places in the show.” Davis, The Great
Exhibition, p. 130; Tythacott, The Lives of Chinese Objects, p. 89; on Edmund Yates,
see Edmund Yates, His Recollections and Experiences, 1885, in particular chapter on
1847–1852, cited in “Victorian London – Entertainment and Recreation – Museums,
Public Buildings and Galleries – The Chinese Collection / Chinese Exhibition” on The
Victorian Dictionary: Exploring Victorian London. Online: http://www.victorianlondon.
org/entertainment/chinesecollection.htm.
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 111

66 Reports difer on He-Sing’s role on the Keying; some reports claim he is the proprie-
tor of the junk while others claim he was only a sailor. Auerbach, The Great Exhibition
of 1851, p. 178; On varying reports of He-Sing, see Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark
‘Chinoiserie’, pp. 44–51, in particular p. 51; Tythacott, The Lives of Chinese Objects, p. 89;
Altick, The Shows of London, p. 460.
67 Letter to Mrs. Brookfeld, 1 May 1851, The Letters and Private Papers of William Makepeace
Thackeray (ed.) Gordon N. Ray (London: Oxford University Press, 1945), Vol. 3, p. 768,
cited in Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark “Chinoiserie,” p. 51.
68 “Punch’s Own Report of the Opening of the Great Exhibition” Punch, Vol. 20 (10
May 1851), p. 190.
69 Hevia, English Lessons, pp. 63–65.
70 He-Sing’s appearance may have inspired Henry Sutherland Edwards’s satirical booklet,
An account of the Chinese commission which was sent to report on the Great Exhibition. The
work is a long, rhyming poem telling the story of the Emperor of China who sent two
delegates to the Great Exhibition to report on what they saw. Auerbach states that the
booklet is an obvious example of the orientalist impulse to denigrate a race in order
to highlight the positive values of Britain. Tythacott sees the work as a document that
represents a deep hostility towards China and refects the xenophobic tendencies of
the Exhibition. Witchard argues that Edwards’s booklet is a type of Sino-satire made
for readers to have a laugh at their own society’s shortcomings. See Auerbach, The
Great Exhibition of 1851, pp. 174–179; Tythacott, The Lives of Chinese Objects, pp. 89–91;
Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark ‘Chinoiserie’, pp. 44–46.
71 “The Chinese Family” Illustrated London News (24 May 1851), p. 13.
72 “A Chinese Puzzle” Punch, Vol. 21 (1851), p. 19.
73 “The Chinese in London” Punch, Vol. 21 (23 August 1851), p. 86.
74 “The Chinese in London” Punch, Vol. 21 (23 August 1851), p. 86.
75 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, pp. 74–75.
76 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, pp. 80–88.
77 Auerbach, The Great Exhibition of 1851, pp. 101–102.
78 Ziter, The Orient on the Victorian Stage, p. 3.
79 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, p. 34.
80 Richard Pearson, “Thackeray and Punch at the Great Exhibition: authority and ambiva-
lence in verbal and visual caricatures” The Great Exhibition of 1851: New Interdisciplinary
Essays (ed.) Louise Purbick (Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press,
2001), p. 188.
81 Robert Bickers, The Scramble for China: Foreign Devils in the Qing Empire, 1832–1914
(London: Allen Lane, 2011), pp. 136–150.
82 “About the English of It” Punch, Vol. 32 (24 January 1857), pp. 32–33.
83 Cobden was supported by William Gladstone, Earl of Derby, Lord John Russell, and
Benjamin Disraeli, among others.
84 “Peace and War in Parliament” Punch, Vol. 16 (23 June 1849), p. 257.
85 “The China Question” Daily News (2 March 1857), p. 4.
86 The Don Pacifco afair of 1850, in which David Pacifco, a British Jew born in Gibral-
tar but residing in Athens asked for the protection of the British government after he
was attacked by an anti-Semitic mob. Palmerston supported Pacifco and sent the navy
to blockade the Greek coast against the protests of other European nations. Cobden
disagreed with this sign of aggression. While the afair did not alter the course of Brit-
ish foreign policy, Palmerston succeeded in arousing an emotive sense of nationalism in
British popular politics by comparing the British and Roman empires. See Auerbach,
The Great Exhibition of 1851, pp. 164–165; Geofrey Hicks, “Don Pacifco, Democracy,
and Danger: The Protectionist Party Critique of British Foreign Policy, 1850–1852”
The International History Review, Vol. 26, No. 3 (September 2004), pp. 515–540; Basil
Kingsley Martin, The Triumph of Lord Palmerston (London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1924),
pp. 51–66.
112 “A Chinese Puzzle”

87 “Turner’s Collection” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 March 1857), p. 107.

88 “A Prophecy” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 March 1857), p. 107.
89 “A Tiresome Debate” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 March 1857), p. 108.
90 J. Y. Wong, Deadly Dreams: Opium, Imperialism and the ‘Arrow’ War (1856–60) in China
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 235–246; Brown, “Diplomacy
and the Fourth Estate,” p. 225.
91 Brown, “Diplomacy and the Fourth Estate,” pp. 41–43.
92 Cited in Basil Kingsley Martin, The Triumph of Lord Palmerston (London: G. Allen &
Unwin, 1924), p. 49. Cobden was speaking about violence abroad and not about war
with China specifcally.
93 Brown, “Diplomacy and the Fourth Estate,” pp. 43–44.
94 Cited in Martin, The Triumph of Lord Palmerston, p. 48.
95 “Chinese Election Song” Punch, Vol. 32 (28 March 1857), p. 123.
96 Wong, Deadly Dreams, pp. 235–246; Brown, “Diplomacy and the Fourth Estate,” p. 44.
97 Wong, Deadly Dreams, pp. 154–155.
98 The Times (5 January 1857), p. 6.
99 “An Invitation” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 March 1857), p. 104.
100 A sea shanty written by Thomas Dibdin (1771–1841), “Haul Away Boys” Bodleian
Libraries, Harding B25 (812), Ballad – Roud Number V21062, Broadside Ballads
Online, ballads.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/view/sheet/4370. The ballad begins with the frst
line “British sailors have a knack.”
101 “Cobden’s Capability” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 March 1857), p. 101.
102 “Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston: Arrow Controversy and the Second
Opium War” New World Encyclopedia. Online: www.newworldencyclopedia.org/
entry/Henry_John_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston.
103 Julia Lovell, The Opium War (London: Picador, 2011), pp. 255–256.
104 Cited in H. Donaldson Jordan, “The Case of Richard Cobden” Proceedings of the Mas-
sachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, Vol. 83 (1971), p. 38.
105 “A Few Mandarins Wanted” Punch, Vol. 32 (14 February 1857), p. 70.
106 “Punch’s Essence of Parliament” Punch, Vol. 32 (7 March 1857), p. 91.
107 “A Chanson for Canton” Punch, Vol. 34 (10 April 1858), p. 151.
108 John Stuart Mill cited in Blue, “China and Western Social Thought in the Modern
Period,” p. 77. For a detailed discussion on Mill thoughts on China as a stagnant nation,
see Michael Levin, J.S. Mill on Civilization and Barbarism (London: Routledge, 2004),
in particular Chapter Six, “Standstill: The Case of China,” pp. 94–120.
109 Palmerston, autograph note, 29 September 1850 (F.O. 17/173), cited in Blue, “China
and Western Social Thought in the Modern Period,” p. 77; and cited in Levin, J.S. Mill
on Civilization and Barbarism, p. 103.
110 Bickers, The Scramble for China, p. 145; Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark “Chinoiserie,”
p. 65.
111 Bickers, The Scramble for China, pp. 146–147; Lovell, The Opium War, pp. 258–259.
112 Bickers, The Scramble for China, p. 148.
113 Lovell states that 519 were killed and 456 wounded; Hevia claims there were “434
casualties including 89 dead.” Lovell, The Opium War, p. 259; Hevia, English Lessons,
p. 40.
114 Bickers, The Scramble for China, pp. 148–149.
115 “What We Ought to do in China” Punch, Vol. 39 (22 December 1860), p. 245.
116 Hevia, English Lessons, pp. 106–107.
117 Hevia, English Lessons, p. 111.
118 Bickers, The Scramble for China, pp. 149–150; Lovell, The Opium War, pp. 262–266.
119 “Nous, Européens, nous sommes les civilises, et pour nous, les Chinois sont les barbares. Voila
ce que la civilisation a fait à la barbarie. Devant l’histoire, l’un des deux bandits s’appellera la
France, l’autre s’appellera L’Angleterre.” Translation mine. “Victor Hugo et le Sac du Palais
 “A Chinese Puzzle” 113

D’Été” Le Monde Diplomatique, octobre 2004, p. 18. Online: https://www.mode-

diplomatique.fr/2004/10/HUGO/11563.
120 Witchard, Thomas Burke’s Dark ‘Chinoiserie’, p. 66; Lovell, The Opium War, p. 265;
Hevia, English Lessons, pp. 114–115.
121 Q. S. Tong, “Traveling Imperialism: Lord Elgin’s Missions to China and the Limits of
Victorian Liberalism” A Century of Travels in China (eds.) Douglas Kerr and Julia Kuehn
(Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2007), pp. 45–46.
122 Tong, “Traveling Imperialism,” p. 45.
123 “New Elgin Marbles” Punch, Vol. 39 (24 November 1860), p. 206.
124 “Our Own Correspondent at the Seat of War” Punch, Vol. 40 (5 January 1861), p. 1.
125 “Destroying the Enemy’s Works” Punch, Vol. 40 (12 January 1861), p. 22.
126 Hevia, English Lessons, p. 111.
127 “A Cheer for Elgin” Punch, Vol. 40 (5 January 1861), p. 3.
128 “Punch’s Essence of Parliament” Punch, Vol. 40 (20 April 1861), p. 161.
129 Tong, “Traveling Imperialism,” p. 50.
130 Spielmann, The History of “Punch,” p. 119.
131 “The Real Barbarian from China” Punch, Vol. 40 (5 January 1861), p. 5.
132 Lydia H. Liu, “The Thug, the Barbarian, and the Work of Imperial Warfare” Modern
Language Association, Vol. 124, No. 5 (October 2009), p. 1860; Song-Chuan Chen,
Merchants of War and Peace (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2017), in par-
ticular Chapter 5, pp. 82–102.
133 Liu, “The Thug, the Barbarian, and the Work of Imperial Warfare,” p. 1861.
134 Banta, Barbaric Intercourse, p. 59.
5
“A LEGACY OF DISCORD”1
War and rebellion

John Tenniel’s “A Touching Appeal” depicts an overgrown childlike Chinese

man named Younghy-Bung-Boo-Hoo who starts a fght but then loses to a
much smaller Japanese man (Figure 5.1). The Japanese fgure stands strong and
ready for action; both hands are clenched into fsts and he leans threateningly
towards the defeated Younghy-Bung-Boo-Hoo who sits on the ground, his
nose red as a result from the fght. Edwin Milliken’s accompanying “poem”
explains the cartoon. The “proud” Younghy-Bung-Boo-Hoo was “jealous of a
Jappy,” who, although small, was a “plucky chappie/[and] Made big Younghy
feel unhappy.” The animosity resulted in a physical confrontation where Youn-
ghy, “the big boy pale and yellow,” was quickly defeated and “began to bleat and
bellow.” Being “fearful for his life,” he cried out, “Though you welly lilly body,
Jap, you strikee biggy blow! Welly much hurtee – me no play!!” His Japanese
opponent shows no mercy “And he cried ‘Fight on, man, do!’” and tells his
Chinese rival, “Yah! In fghting I’m your mate. /You cave in a bit too late, /I
will whop you – if you’ll wait.”2 The poem ends with Younghy-Bung-Boo-Hoo
whinging that the foreigners, who are standing watch in the background, do
nothing to help.
This cartoon and accompanying “poem” was published in November 1894,
during the First Sino-Japanese war, a confict between China and Japan over
supremacy in Korea. It was a short but decisive war and the consequences were
paramount in shifting the balance of world power. Western powers were astounded
by China’s rapid defeat and theorised that this was the result of China’s exten-
sive corruption, stubborn resistance to Western technology, and the nation’s back-
wardness. Japan emerged as a new imperial player on the international arena and
“A Touching Appeal” refected this shift in power. The message in the cartoon
declared that China may be great in size but it is not great in strength. Japan, on

DOI: 10.4324/9781003025573-5
 “A Legacy of Discord” 115

FIGURE 5.1 “A Touching Appeal” Punch, Vol. 107 (17 November 1894), p. 235.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

the other hand, is represented in relatable terms; not only is it an island nation like
Britain, but also the Japanese are characterised as people with plucky spirits, a trait
easily identifable as it is found in the emblematic John Bull, who embodies pug-
nacity, independence, and courage.3
116 “A Legacy of Discord”

Milliken’s “poem” is equally signifcant as it is within this textual representa-

tion that China and Japan are categorised and understood within the British
popular imagination. Younghy speaks in broken pidgin English and his rival, the
Japanese man, communicates in standard, grammatically correct English. For the
Chinese, the use of “pidgin,” a derivative of the English word for “business,” was
taken seriously as it was considered a valuable tool needed in order to engage in
the lucrative trade sector.4 Europeans and Americans, however, viewed pidgin
English as something laughable and it was associated with non-Caucasians with
low social status.5 This perception combined with the difculty the Chinese have
in pronouncing some consonants resulted in pidgin being frequently employed
for comedic efect and this had a “profound impact on popular perception.”6
The Japanese were also subjected to ridicule in their use of Yokohama Pidgin.
For example, Hofman Atkinson poked fun of its use in his humorous pamphlet,
Exercises in the Yokohama Dialect published in Yokohama and then reviewed by
C.G. Leland in London’s New Quarterly Magazine in 1879.7 “A Touching Appeal”
is notable in focusing linguistic humour solely on the Chinese fgure and this is
signifcant.
The Victorian era was a time when dictionaries and grammars were empha-
sising norms and rules for how the English language should, and should not, be
used and the writers at Punch prided themselves at using humour to “defend”
the English language against abuse and debasement. Appropriate use was set as a
crucial marker that separated the cultivated middle class from the rustic working
class. There was therefore a “right” and “wrong” way to speak English and Punch
staf members “recognized that the proper use of language was vital to the image
of middle-class respectability.”8 This distinction was all-the more pronounced
when the use of English was employed to accentuate “foreignness.” Tenniel’s
Japanese fgure with command of the English language “signifed full cultural
competence and social prestige” and indicated that Japan was able to enter the
“civilised” world.9 The Chinese, on the other hand, were not able to success-
fully integrate themselves into the modern world and were thus represented as
inferior speakers.
This chapter explores Punch’s engagement with turn-of-the century imperi-
alist discourse. Events in China during the 1890s generated much interest and
Punch not only interacted with new developments of imperialism but also con-
tributed to particular notions and ideas of China and Japan in the British imagi-
nation. The admiration of Japan as a plucky nation entering the international
arena as a formidable power in “A Touching Appeal” quickly dissipated into
anxieties over British interests in China. As the nineteenth century came to a
close, Punch redirected its focus on the fractured alliances and increased tensions
between imperial rivals who joined forces to suppress the Boxer Uprising. With
Britain’s heightened geopolitical awareness and conscientiousness in its global
political and economic position, Punch used its cartoons as a powerful tool to
justify Britain’s presence in China as well as convince its readers of nations they
should regard with suspicion.
 “A Legacy of Discord” 117

The frst Sino-Japanese war

The shift in geopolitics

In 1894, with war between China and Japan imminent, Sir Robert Hart,
Inspector-General of China’s Imperial Maritime Custom declared “999 out of
every 1000 Chinese are sure big China can thrash little Japan.”10 Hart, however, did
not have the beneft of hindsight and could not have considered the complications
surrounding China such as the disastrous mismanagement of military funds,11 the
shortage of much needed ammunition to supply the Chinese army,12 the failure of
Chinese leadership, as well as China’s lack of understanding of the importance of
Japan’s modernisation reforms, and what that meant in relation to the Manchu-
ruled country.13 At the outbreak of hostilities, all eyes were on unfolding events.
The war generated a great deal of interest and many believed that China had a
strong, modern navy with well-built forts and even if the army was not yet fully
trained, the sheer numbers would certainly “turn the scale in her favour.”14
News media from around the globe reported on events with the London Times
providing the most detailed coverage.15 Before long, Western journalists noticed
and started complaining of irregularities and inaccuracies in the news stories
printed by both the Chinese and the Japanese press. In September 1894, The Pall
Mall Gazette published an article condemning the misreporting of the war:Those
who may have been in doubt as to whether the art of lying is in a state of decay
should have had that doubt removed by reading the various accounts of the fght at
the Yalu, at any rate, as far as the East is concerned. There is a fnished efrontery
about the telegrams which shows that both sides are splendid liars.16
A month later, the newspaper explained to readers why it thought there were
erroneous reports, “The reason why the war news is so woefully inaccurate is to
be found in the fact that not a solitary European correspondent is permitted to the
front by either of the belligerents.”17
Punch joined the sense of outrage by the misinformation on events surrounding
the war. In September 1894, Milliken quipped that there are “Wild contradictions
and vagueness extreme, /Faith, it all reads like Flowery Land dream.”18 Arthur à
Beckett went further in February 1895 in “Toning It Down.” The article is divided
into two sections, one for the Japanese version of events and the other for the
Chinese. Both claim that during a particular battle, which remains unnamed, their
respective side was victorious. The Japanese claim that only “a cabin-boy [was]
wounded. The Chinese prisoners amounted to 180,000 men” whereas the Chinese
claim that the “slaughter of the Japs was enormous, amounting to at least 40,000
sailors and 50,000 marines. There was no loss on the Chinese side.”19 With Japan
emerging victorious battle after battle, the Japanese government decided to allow
foreign correspondents to accompany the Japanese army. This decision was most
welcomed; the observations reported by white men permitted on the scene were
considered both reliable and trustworthy by the Western press.20 By contrast, for-
eign journalists were not allowed to accompany the Chinese military.
118 “A Legacy of Discord”

Japan was quick to grasp the importance of representation. For example,

Japanese woodblock print artists paid close attention in their depictions of the
Japanese army with modern uniforms and the latest weapons. These images con-
trasted starkly with their representations of the Chinese military in traditional attire
equipped with outdated weapons. Japan not only played the part of a civilised
nation in adopting Western technological achievements but they also looked like
a unifed, trained, military apparatus and this was signifcant in winning the war
of perceptions among the global community. Japan understood that modern-style
uniforms were a visual display of modernity and progress; to the Chinese, they sim-
ply viewed Japan’s adoption as nothing more than mimicry.21 Japan was also careful
to fght a “civilised” war in accordance with Western standards to demonstrate to
the world that it had become a modern, industrialised power.22 The major excep-
tion occurred in November 1894 when Japanese troops, after seeing the mutilated
bodies of their military comrades, inficted a three-day slaughter on the defeated
population at Port Arthur.
Thomas Cowan of the Times witnessed the fall of Port Arthur. The frst day of
the capture, Cowan excused the Japanese army but reported to be “greatly surprised
next day to fnd them still killing the Chinese.” While he supported the Japanese
claims that it was difcult to discern between soldiers and civilians, he said that this
did not explain the summary execution of women and children and conjectured
that the Japanese “also are barbarous at heart, like the Chinese.”23 Another witness,
James Allan wrote a book about the war and justifed the massacre at Port Arthur
by claiming, “Strongly as the massacre by the Japanese troops in Port Arthur is to be
condemned, there is not the slightest doubt in the world that the Chinese brought it
on themselves by their own vindictive savagery towards their enemies.”24 The British
war correspondent Frederic Villiers felt diferently. He writes that the Japanese army,
upon seeing the horrifc remains of their comrades, provided “almost an excuse for
the conduct of the troops [on the frst day], but that the last two days’ work might
carry another term” and after considering what the term should be, he writes that it
is “called . . . a cold-blooded butchery. It was a cold-blooded butchery.”25
In January 1895, Milliken condemned the brutality of the Japanese army in “A Gen-
tle Hint to the Jubilant Jap” that highlighted the battles won before ending with:

But, though their pluck be grand,

Bar-bar-i-ty
Their choicest gifts will mar,
Blood stains their rising star,
Foul slaughter is not war.
Fie, Jappy, fe!26

The denunciation was one of the only serious comments found in Punch per-
taining to the Sino-Japanese war; instead, the magazine tended to reduce the
horrors and violence of war to a series of cute and comical events using familiar
nursery rhymes. Tenniel employed the legendary story of David and Goliath to
 “A Legacy of Discord” 119

depict a boisterous, pint-sized Japan giving the giant, China, a good walloping.
As the cover-art for Punch volume 107, Mr. Punch watches behind a fence at
an exuberant, and tiny, Japanese man bravely approaching a Chinese giant (Fig-
ure 5.2).27 Within the magazine, Tenniel’s Large Cut cartoon, “Jap the Giant

FIGURE 5.2 “Front page” Punch, Vol. 107 (11 August 1894), n.p.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
120 “A Legacy of Discord”

Killer,” depicts a tiny Japanese soldier stands on top of a bewildered looking

Chinese giant, laying on his back with legs kicking in an unsuccessful attempt
to pick himself up (Figure 5.3).
Milliken provided a story to accompany Tenniel’s cartoons. The story describes
the hatred between Japan (named “Little Jap”) and China (named “Big Jon-ni”)
and indeed, Big Jon-ni “disdained everybody else save his conceited and colossal
self.” It explains that Big Jon-ni has been “in a state of abstraction for nine centu-
ries” and in this static state, he “lost the use of his head, as well as his legs! He hates
and scorns [Japan’s] tutelary goddess, Pro-Gress.”28 The opinion that China was
losing the war due to self-imposed stagnation was shared by reports in The Times,
Punch’s preferred media outlet for its news stories. On 26December 1894, The
Times claimed that with

passionate efort the Japanese have ransacked the Western world for its treas-
ures of knowledge, and have vigorously applied what they have learned.
The Chinese, on the other hand, have set their face against the science of
other nations, and, with an unhappy mixture of apathy and contempt, have
rejected the teaching which has been pressed upon them.29

In another Large Cut, Linley Sambourne drew what he called in his diary, “China
Boy & Japanese Bee.”30 The cartoon depicts a little Chinese boy named Ah Sid

FIGURE 5.3 “Jap the Giant-Killer” Punch, Vol. 107 (29 September 1894), p. 151.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Legacy of Discord” 121

FIGURE 5.4 “Little Ah Sid and the Butterfy-Bee” Punch, Vol. 107 (20 October 1894),
p. 182.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

(acid), who has thrown his bow and arrow to the ground as he runs from a deter-
mined little bee, ready to physically chastise the boy with a small baton (Figure 5.4).
Milliken once again provides an accompanying text explaining that Ah Sid “was
fond of his fun” and while he was at play, he spotted a Japanese bumblebee. In
122 “A Legacy of Discord”

“malice secure,” Ah Sid chased the bee in order to pull of its wings. To his great
surprise, the bumblebee fghts back and the poem fnishes with Ah Sid getting his
comeuppance with a sting from the bee. Reminiscent of Aesop’s fable, The Ant and
the Grasshopper, Ah Sid prefers to idle away his time in “fun” and “frolics” and his
“pig-headed” ways resulted in an industrious Japanese bumblebee entering Ah Sid’s
territory and stinging him where it hurts most, which was China’s loss of territory,
regional power, and international status.
Punch continually poked fun at the idea of a small nation like Japan defeat-
ing an enormous China, but there were deeper signifcations within the cartoons
and textual accompaniments. The combination of words and images refected an
important change not only in the dynamics between China and Japan, but also
of Japan’s elevated international status and subsequent shift of geopolitical power.
Arthur Diósy, founder of the Japan Society of the United Kingdom, explained the
new global balance of power:

Governments that had, in the past, treated Japan with scant courtesy, now
seriously considered the question of an alliance with her. Other great Pow-
ers paid her the almost equally great compliment of looking upon her as a
dangerous rival . . . Friends and foes alike had begun to grasp the changed
situation. The New Far East was born.31

Japan’s rapid industrialisation and modernisation fxed the standards and expecta-
tions. China not only lost the war with Japan, but the country also lost interna-
tional respect and sufered from an increased negative global perception as Western
explanations for China’s rapid defeat centred around notions of a lack of both
discipline and bravery in the army, widespread corruption, as well as a stubborn
resistance to modernise institutions and practices.
At the beginning of hostilities, the press was already contemplating China’s
weaknesses. The North-China Herald, for example, brought attention to Chi-
na’s examination system, by asking,

Who for instance but raving maniacs . . . would think of compelling all
their mandarins and scholars to devote all their energies to the study of small
ancient principalities . . . which are all dead thousands of years ago, while
living nations which to-day singly possess more power than all those ancient
ones put together are not worth a thought in their studies?32

Punch concurred with this assessment, explaining that the Government of China is
“a vast system of competitive examination tempered by bribery.” Students study “the
works of CONFUCIUS, the history of China, and the art of writing as practised
by the old masters” and if successful, they are “sent all over the country to be mag-
istrates, generals, ship captains, engineers, without having the slightest acquaintance
with details of systems over which they are put in a position of command.”33
 “A Legacy of Discord” 123

By the end of the war, reports explaining reasons for China’s defeat were
definitive. The front page of The Pall Mall Gazette declared that Chinese offic-
ers “possessed neither courage nor tactical knowledge” and whenever they
could, “they ran away, and it was only when escape was impossible that they
fought.”34 The North-China Herald remarked that “corruption [is] the main
element in every part of the Chinese system” and that the word “Dishon-
esty” appears to “sum up the causes of China’s fall.”35 The Times reported
that a “more hopeless spectacle of fatuous imbecility, made up in equal parts
of arrogance and helplessness, than the central Government of the Chinese
Empire presented . . . is almost impossible to conceive.”36 By contrast Japan
was praised for its rapid and successful modernisation programmes and tech-
nological achievements.37 Western admiration was, however, short lived as
concerns quickly developed over the threat of Japan as a formidable imperial-
ist power. Sambourne captures Japan’s new position in China in the Large Cut,
“Jap in the China Shop” depicting a small Japanese man grabbing a rotund
Chinese man by his queue (Figure 5.5).
The cartoon uses many of the visual tropes found in “Jap the Giant Killer” and
“Little Ah Sid”: the Chinese man is twice the size of the Japanese fgure but proves
to be no match. While there is a repetitive visual theme, Milliken’s accompanying
text presents something diferent for readers to consider. The Japanese man tells

FIGURE 5.5 “The Jap in the China Shop” Punch, Vol. 108 (27 April 1895), p. 194.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
124 “A Legacy of Discord”

China to “Throw open your markets, and leave it to Me!” and to “Take down all
your shutters, and hand me the key!” The text ends with Japan asking,

Excuse me this wink, – but what do you think?

Do you hold “Outside Devils” will sufer
The Flowery Land to be locked by my hand,
Any more than by yours, in their faces?38

Milliken points to an awareness that despite global recognition of Japan’s rapid

modernisation, Western powers will not respect the Japanese as equal play-
ers on the international arena. Commenting on the possibility of an Anglo-
Japanese alliance, The North-China Herald declared that “Japan is, and must
inevitably remain, an Oriental Power, and it has not as yet fallen to England’s
lot to play knife to any Asiatic Power’s fork.”39 There is also a certain degree
of anxiety in Milliken’s text, as the Japanese figure is clearly intent on expand-
ing his interests in China; Japan is therefore presented as a new and powerful
imperial rival.
Punch was quick to understand this signifcance. As early as December 1894,
Sambourne’s Large Cut, “The Infant Phenomenon” represents Japan as a
confdent youngster lecturing on the art of war to a room full of Europeans
(Figure 5.6). While the cartoon puts forward the idea that Japan, an Asian
nation, could indeed be a world power, Milliken’s accompanying text ofers a

FIGURE 5.6 “The Infant Phenomenon” Punch, Vol. 107 (22 December 1894), p. 290.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Legacy of Discord” 125

word of caution: “If a kid, he’s not a fool!” and ends with a warning that John
Bull “Thinks the infant Jap a chap to keep his eye on!”40 As admiration dispelled
into anxiety in the wake of a victorious Japan, the daily news began report-
ing on the new global situation. The Pall Mall Gazette published a front-page
article explaining that Britain must nowreckon with a new Power in the East,
and a power which success may be expected to render aggressive. . . . We are
manifestly the Power most afected, as we have colonies and commerce in every
quarter of the earth.41
The Times stated that “Until little more than a twelvemonth ago Great Britain
had enjoyed for upwards of 50 years . . . almost undisputed ascendancy in the Far
East. . . . Within the following 12 months the situation was completely changed.”42
The Sino-Japanese war had a devastating impact on China. It not only upset the
traditional balance of power between China, Japan, and Korea, but it also high-
lighted the incompetence and weakness of the Qing court for the world to witness.
To many, China’s demise was considered imminent and therefore the partitioning
of its territory was simply a matter of course. The North-China Herald reported that
China “lost her prestige which was nothing but the shadow of a great name.” It
correctly predicts the scramble for concessions by declaring that China,

Lies exposed as a carcass in the neighbourhood of which a cloud of eagles

is hovering; that her independence is gone for the moment, and that on
pain of permanent extinction as an autonomous Power she must submit to
a prolonged tutelage; that if she does not honestly and unreservedly accept
the position of a learner, from within, that position will be rudely forced on
her from without.43

The post-war attitude towards China was contemptuous and imperial powers no
longer hesitated in carving up spheres of infuence among themselves. Indeed, the
feeling was one of moral justifcation: if China was incapable of governing itself,
then the powers should step in and take control over its corrupt institutions.44 This
led to a scramble for Chinese territory and the resulting imperial anxieties within
a new geopolitical order gave Punch plenty of material to satirise.

The scramble for China

Picturing anxieties
In May 1898, Lord Salisbury gave his now famous and frequently quoted “dying
nations” speech to the Primrose League. He predicted that “the living nations
will gradually encroach on the territory of the dying and the seeds of confict
among civilized nations will gradually appear.”45 Salisbury could not have real-
ised the accuracy of his perception. The result of the Sino-Japanese war not only
placed China among “dying nations,” but the war also exposed China’s weakness
at a time of new expansionist ideas among Great Power politics. Russia’s interest
in Manchuria and other outer provinces as well as its close proximity to China
126 “A Legacy of Discord”

positioned Russia as an immediate threat to Britain. The Franco-Russian Alliance

intended to check German power in Europe but was also directed against Britain.
The transformation of geopolitical power directly afected Britain’s global stand-
ing and Russia posed the most serious threat to British interests. China in the late
nineteenth century thus became a site upon which imperial anxieties and power
dynamics were both shaped and negotiated. It was during this time of heightened
international tensions that Punch created Large Cuts refecting Britain’s evolving
relationship with rival powers and used its cartoons to justify Britain’s presence
in China.
In Tenniel’s “John Stands Aloof,” a rotund Chinese man loses a game of cards
and sits with his mouth hanging open in bewilderment as his Japanese opponent
smiles and collects his winnings. Britain, Russia, Germany, and France watch the
game and Russia is visibly unhappy (Figure 5.7). He stands directly over the game,
points to the victorious Japanese man and furrows his eyebrows in disapproval. He
asks John Bull, “Is he to have all this?” Standing of to the side, looking uncon-
cerned while smoking a pipe, Britain answers “Well – he’s played a square game
– I don’t see any call to interfere.”46 Milliken’s accompanying text further clarifes
Britain’s stance,

But the hands [Japan] has played

With that Heathen Chinee,
And the points he has made,
Are, as far as I see,
The result of good play plus good fortune;
And does it concern you or me?

The Russ standing by

Turned his glance upon me.
(For the JAP’s pile was high.)
And he hissed, “Shall this be?
Must I have this smart JAP for a neighbour?
Shall he clear out the Heathen Chinee?”

Swarthy FRANÇOIS looked glum,

Ginger HANS rubbed his chin:
but I smoked and stood mum,
As the JAP raked the tin.
Then I says, “He’s played fairly and squarely.
So what call have we to cut in?47

The cartoon suggests that Britain had no need to concern itself over Japan emerg-
ing as a strong imperial force and that Japan’s code of conduct in warfare was
“played fairly and squarely.” In reality, Japan could be a useful ally in challenging
 “A Legacy of Discord” 127

FIGURE 5.7 “John Stands Aloof ” Punch, Vol. 108 (4 May 1895), p. 211.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Russian expansion and thus it was in the interest of Britain that John Bull keep
“mum.”
The cartoon also points to Britain’s isolation policy, which was coming under
close scrutiny with the shift in international power that upset the political status
quo in China. Britain was hyper sensitive to the terms of the Treaty of Shimon-
oseki, knowing there was a delicate balance between siding with China, in order
to secure British interests, and siding with Japan, the new imperial power and
potential future ally. The newly arrived British ambassador at St. Petersburg, Sir
Frank Lascelles suggested “that it would be unwise to make an enemy of a Power
which was obtaining a preponderant position in the Far East.”48 Britain therefore
chose to “stand aloof ” and held no frm policy; instead, Britain endeavoured to
bring about a peace settlement, which would efectively maintain its dominant
position. The decision to appear neutral had its consequences, as exemplifed by
the subsequent political manoeuvring between the powers to provide China with
a substantial loan.
Britain declined participation in the Triple Intervention, even after several failed
attempts from Russia, Germany, and France to enlist the British in applying pres-
sure on Japan to give up its claim of the Liaodong Peninsula. When the Qing court
requested £50 million to pay the war indemnity, the British, French, and Ger-
man governments strategised on how to get hold of such an enormous sum. The
128 “A Legacy of Discord”

signifcance of this was not lost among the powers who understood that political
infuence over the vanquished nation rested to a large extent with the nation best
able to provide the necessary loan for China’s immediate fnancial requirements.49
Russia moved in and made a frm ofer, securing the right to fnance the Qing
government by bringing attention to its active role in assisting China in retaining
possession of this strategic area when Britain refused to help.50
In July 1895, The Spectator commented on the changed dynamics of power in
China. “Russia” it states, “becomes the creditor of China” and thus “the guarantor
becomes the protector of the guaranteed Power, and the benefciary State has to
seek direction and advice from its patron” thereby Russia successfully secured “a
position of predominance in China.”51 Later that year in October, The Times pub-
lished a report declaring that Russia “assumes a protectorate over China, and can
only be intended to overset the existing balance of power in the East.”52 The Sino-
Japanese war not only exposed China’s weakness, but post-war events also created
a heightened awareness of geopolitics and power among international rivals. Brit-
ain was strategic in allowing a future possible alliance with Japan but competition
with Russia increased in intensity. Russia may have won the frst indemnity loan
but China would subsequently borrow from Britain, Germany, and France.53 Ten-
niel’s “Embarras de Richesse” depicts a Chinese man at the “Hotel de L’Europe”
(Figure 5.8). He appears undecided on which table he would like to dine as both
menus ofer the same meal: a large loan served especially for China.

FIGURE 5.8 “Embarras de Richesse” Punch, Vol. 114 (5 February 1898), p. 55.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Legacy of Discord” 129

FIGURE 5.9 “A Thin Disguise” Punch, Vol. 109 (2 November 1895), p. 206.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

British anxieties and suspicion over Russian ambitions in China steadily

increased in the months after the Treaty of Shimonoseki was settled. Representa-
tions of Russia as a marauding bear dominated Punch cartoons and refected mis-
trust and imperial competition. As early as 1895, Sambourne’s “A Thin Disguise”
(Figure 5.9) and Tenniel’s “Seaside Lodgings” (Figure 5.10) the following year
depict Russia as a sneaky bear with ulterior motives. In the frst, the Russian bear
130 “A Legacy of Discord”

FIGURE 5.10 “Seaside Lodgings” Punch, Vol. 111 (19 December 1896), p. 295.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

is dressed in Chinese clothing and clutches a secret treaty with “Port Arthur” writ-
ten across, as he stealthily crosses into Manchuria. Tenniel’s Russian bear is a not-so
innocent tourist, actively seeking lodgings around Port Arthur. The cartoons not
only correctly predicted Russian ambitions upon Port Arthur, which subsequently
came into their possession, but they also grasped the signifcance of Russian hopes
to build a Siberian railway across Manchuria and control the Bohai Sea [Gulf of
 “A Legacy of Discord” 131

Pechihli], which directly threatened British political and commercial interests in

northern China.54
In March 1898, The Times published proceedings from the Royal United Ser-
vice Institution grappling with “The Chinese Question: How it may afect our
Imperial interests.” Russia, it was said, “thoroughly understood how to deal with
an Asiatic Power, and made herself feared.” It went on to describe Russia as the
“protector of China in a peculiar sense – she protected for a price” and the “great
object of Russian policy was to utilize China for the territorial expansion of Rus-
sia.” The solution to curb Russian imperialist ambitions is “to induce China, by
pressure if necessary to adopt reforms which would be of advantage to all the world
including herself.”55 British diplomats and politicians were, however, scornful about
the possibility of reforms in China. Contrary to Western belief, China’s humiliating
defeat in the Sino-Japanese war and the subsequent carving up of the country into
various foreign spheres of infuence led the Chinese to the realisation that reform
was indeed needed and necessary for the country’s survival.
In 1898, the Guangxu emperor, determined to reform China and make the
country strong, issued sweeping decrees aimed at reforming the political and social
systems. The changes proved to be too drastic for conservatives and the Empress
Dowager Cixi, the real power behind the throne, promptly rounded up and

FIGURE 5.11 “Artful Dowager” Punch, Vol. 115 (8 October 1898), p. 158.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
132 “A Legacy of Discord”

executed reformers who did not manage to fee to safety. The Guangxu emperor
was put under house arrest and the Empress Dowager took over the reigns of
control thereby putting an end to Guangxu’s ambitious plans to modernise China
along Western lines. Sambourne’s “The Artful Dowager” ridiculed the intrigues
of the Qing court by depicting Cixi as the real power in China. In the Large Cut,
the Empress Dowager is pulling the ear and threatening to punish the Guangxu
emperor, represented as a mere boy, for his ideas on modernising the country
(Figure 5.11).
Frustrated with China’s weakness, Sir Nicholas Roderick O’Conor, former minis-
ter to China believed the country “had endless opportunities to harken to our advice
but she preferred the hug of the bear & she must now take the consequences.”56 In
August 1899, Sambourne depicted the Russian bear coming across a Japanese man
wooing a Chinese woman (Figure 5.12). “Look here, I say!” says Russia, “If there’s
any hugging to be done, I’ll do it.” The cartoon represents the rivalry between Rus-
sia and Japan for gains in China; however, it is unique among the Punch series of
imperial narratives related to China. Moving away from the tropes of dragons and
rotund useless Mandarins, Sambourne feminises China by representing the country
as a female object of afection by two male rivals’ desire for infuence and control.
The feminisation of China was not a new concept; from the 1790s, China became
female in British discourse in order for the country to embody particular traits such as
weak, irrational, and whimsical. Britain, of course, claimed a masculine identity that

FIGURE 5.12 “Untitled” Punch, Vol. 117 (16 August 1899), p. 74.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Legacy of Discord” 133

encompassed strength, rational, and honour.57 Sambourne’s depiction of two lecher-

ous imperial rivals put forward the idea that China is weak and in need of protection,
and who better qualifed for the role of protector than the British?
Alarmed at Russian rivalry, British merchants warned that Russia would ensure
the end of free trade in China by installing protectionist tarifs and other measures

FIGURE 5.13 “Honour à La Russe” Punch, Vol. 114 (7 May 1898), p. 211.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
134 “A Legacy of Discord”

to close their sphere of infuence from British trade.58 Russia was eventually suc-
cessful in acquiring its long-desired Liaodong Peninsula with the ports of Dalian
[Talienwan] and Port Arthur with the understanding that Dalian would be a free
port. Britain remained suspicious and viewed Russia’s agreement with distrust
and as Russia looked next to Manchuria to expand, the Spectator commented that
“[Britain] shall not be excluded from Manchuria, but only unable to get in.”59

FIGURE 5.14 “Open At Last!” Punch, Vol. 117 (23 August 1899), p. 91.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Legacy of Discord” 135

FIGURE 5.15 “Sentinels” Punch, Vol. 114 (16 April 1898), p. 175.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

In 1898, Tenniel’s “Honour à La Russe” (Figure 5.13) depicts an aggrieved Brit-

ish Lion confronting the Russian Bear’s broken promise to allow merchant ships.
A year later, Tenniel created “Open At Last!” (Figure 5.14) to illustrate the Russian
Bear allowing free trade, much to Britain’s relief, although this did little to relieve
tension or approach a rapprochement.
Tenniel’s “Sentinels” (Figure 5.15) and “The Fight for the Foot-Plate” (Fig-
ure 5.16) and Sambourne’s “The Open Mouth” (Figure 5.17) depict the power
136 “A Legacy of Discord”

FIGURE 5.16 “The Fight for the Foot-Plate” Punch, Vol. 116 (15 March 1899), p. 127.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

struggle between Britain and Russia over territory as well as control over infrastruc-
ture while simultaneously portraying China’s inability to defend itself. Germany
was also causing concern. As a recently unifed nation, Germany arrived late in the
colonial game and had its own global aspirations. The murder of two German mis-
sionaries in 1897 in Shandong province was used as an opportunity to expand impe-
rial ambitions and in March 1898, Germany leased the Bay of Jiaozhou [Kiaochow]
with its harbour Qingdao [Tsingtao] on the coast of the Yellow Sea.60 The German
pretext to further its own imperial ambitions was not lost in China nor among the
powers. In January 1898, The New York Herald published an interview with the
famous Chinese statesman, Li Hongzhang, in which Li pointed out how the murder
of German missionaries was used “just to oppress us.” He added, “Should China be
distressed by having her shores invaded and her territory occupied because of an
occurrence which Western countries would deal with by law and not by war?”61
Sambourne’s Large Cut, “A New Rôle,” captures German ambitions. Kaiser
Wilhelm is dressed in Chinese clothing, pulling up his moustache while admiring
himself in a mirror (Figure 5.18). The caption has him thinking out loud, “Um-
ha!” he muses, “With just a few additional touches here and there, I shall make a
frst-rate Emperor of China!”62 Punch also brought attention to the German pretext
 “A Legacy of Discord” 137

FIGURE 5.17 “The Open Mouth; or, the Integrity of China” Punch, Vol. 116 (10
May 1899), p. 218.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

to acquiring Chinese territory. “Compensation” provides a quid pro quo satirical list
of German demands should any citizen fall into misfortune on Chinese soil:

To 1 Missionary, killed 200,000 taels.

Ditto 1 Cathedral, complete
Ditto ditto 50 square miles of territory.
To 1 Sailor, killed 1 Railway concession
1 Colonel, insulted 1,000 square miles of territory
2 Colonels, wounded 1 Province
1 General, killed The Chinese Empire63

In Sambourne’s “What Will They Do With ‘Em?” the instability of friendship and
co-operation between Germany and China is highlighted as the Kaiser and the
Emperor of China comically battle with the other’s national symbols (Figure 5.18).
With the full realisation of German imperial ambitions in China, Henry Bax-
Ironside, the First Secretary at the Peking legation, predicted the Germans “will
establish an ‘imperium in imperio’” and apply “high-handed methods . . . in order
to coerce the weak Government of Peking.”64 There was growing unease among
the powers as rivals kept a watchful eye on each other and their interests in China.
138 “A Legacy of Discord”

FIGURE 5.18 “A New Rôle” Punch, Vol. 114 (15 January 1898), p. 14.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Legacy of Discord” 139

FIGURE 5.19 “What Will They Do With ‘Em?” Punch, Vol. 114 (18 June 1898),
p. 278.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Punch kept up-to-date with the latest proceedings and was quick to point out
opportunistic activities by rival powers. Russia was consistently represented as a
scheming and untrustworthy bear whereas Germany was depicted as a zealous
imperialist. Remarking on the two imperial rivals, Punch quipped: “Germany and
Russia (to China). Tea and turn out? No, thank you. We both prefer to take a little
Chinese port, and consider that it will be all the better for keeping.”65
An opportunity to counterbalance German and Russian gains in China
arrived in the form of a lease of Weihaiwei, although the port was only sym-
bolically important. Weihaiwei was too isolated to be of much use militarily and
therefore the War Ofce and the Admiralty quickly resolved to abandon plans to
fortify the place. However, its location in Shandong, the same coastal province
as Jiaozhou Bay, meant that the presence of Britain in the area checked German
proceedings. Equally signifcant, it served to mollify Russophobic sentiments
at home by reasserting Britain’s status as a power thereby appealing to British
public opinion.66 In a letter to the editor, P.H. Colomb wrote to The Times
explaining that Weihaiwei held a “political, quite as much as, or even more
than, a strategical genesis.” He explains the Chinese port should be considered
“a pistol at the head of the opposite shore, Port Arthur” as well as an impor-
tant reminder to the Chinese people “that we were not going to sufer another
nation to assume a foremost place in the councils of China which we had so
140 “A Legacy of Discord”

FIGURE 5.20 “A Game of Speculation” Punch, Vol. 114 (15 January 1898), p. 19.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

long occupied.”67 During his years as prime minister and foreign secretary, Lord
Salisbury understood the necessity of appeasing the British public and wrote,
“ ‘the public’ will require territorial or cartographic consolation in China. It will
not be useful, & it will be expensive but as a matter of course we shall have to
do it.”68
Punch also understood the importance of public opinion and although Britain
was depicted as one of the imperial players in the game of partitioning China,
the series of cartoons justifed Britain by representing China as a nation in need
of British leadership and stability. Infuential politicians and members of govern-
ment concurred. The Spectator declared that the Foreign Secretary George Curzon
is “almost entirely without hope that China will do anything for herself, or will
become anything but an object of grasping attack to foreign Powers, attack from
which she must be protected, if at all, by an exertion of British strength.”69 In
Punch, however, Britain was represented in a paradoxical position.
Tenniel’s “A Game of Speculation,” for example, depicts Britain sitting along-
side rival powers in a poker-game for control over China (Figure 5.19). On the
one hand, Britain is seen as actively participating in the division of China; on
the other, Britain’s actions is justifed by claiming that its role protected China’s
interests as well as the continued maintenance of the global balance of power. Two
further Tenniel cartoons depict Britain’s conficting position: “Giving Him a Lift”
(Figure 5.20) represent a protective John Bull reassuring China that with Britain’s
 “A Legacy of Discord” 141

FIGURE 5.21 “Giving Him a Lift” Punch, Vol. 114 (12 March 1898), p. 115.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

assistance, other imperial powers would not be able to easily take advantage of its
weakened state. “Hold On, John!” (Figure 5.21) depicts the tug-of-war between
European powers as they fght over control for Chinese territory and infrastructure.
The series of cartoons in Punch depicting the scramble for Chinese concessions
did more than simply refect imperial rivalries. The magazine used its cartoons to
persuade readers that Britain’s presence in China was justifed by a repetitive repre-
sentation of Russia as a sneaky bear and Germany as an ambitious and opportunis-
tic imperialist. The narrative consistently promoted the idea that Britain’s role was
vital in order to maintain the balance of world power and ensure fair treatment
for the Chinese against rivals with ulterior and questionable motives. China was
further destabilised and the division of its territories gave rise to a violent backlash
with the Boxer Uprising in early 1900, which would take the international com-
munity by surprise and place Japan as an ally alongside Western powers.

The Boxer Uprising

Cartooning tensions in the Eight-Nation Alliance

By the closing years of the nineteenth century, strong anti-foreign, anti-Christian
sentiments permeated through China’s social fabric and this was further aggravated
by economic impoverishment, natural calamities, and growing Chinese nation-
alism. This combination provided the foundation for a violent demonstration,
142 “A Legacy of Discord”

known as the Boxer Uprising, against Chinese and foreign Christians as well as the
foreign community in China. The Boxers were composed mainly of Chinese peas-
ants, made desperate after a series of famines and droughts in the Shandong area.
They banded together to revolt against the increased expansion of Christianity into
proper China and their aim was to support the Qing in eliminating foreigners and
their religion from the country.70
Joseph W. Esherick notes that the Shandong area where the Boxers originated
was largely composed of Catholics and thus it was the Catholics rather than other
Christian denominations that resentment and anger were directed towards. As
Esherick explains, although the “Protestant converts would soon fnd themselves
caught up in the growing anti-Christian movement, the primary Boxer animus was
directed at the Catholics.” Chinese Christians were also targets. They were, much
like the foreigners in China, disliked and distrusted because many converted for
opportunistic reasons and used their connection with foreign priests and churches
to gain benefts. Admiral Tirpitz, secretary of state of the German Naval Minis-
try and chief architect of Germany’s naval development, wrote to the Jiaozhou
governor regarding events in 1899. He believed that “the uproar in Shantung was
caused by the Catholic missionaries in general, and the provocative behavior of the
Chinese Christians in particular.”71
With tensions and animosity simmering, the Boxers targeted railroads, telegraph
systems, and missionaries, all of which were, from a Western perspective, important

FIGURE 5.22 “Hold On, John!” Punch, Vol. 114 (2 April 1898), p. 151.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
 “A Legacy of Discord” 143

FIGURE 5.23 “The Same Old Bear” Punch, Vol. 118 (13 June 1900), p. 419.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

FIGURE 5.24 “A Legacy of Discord” Punch, Vol. 118 (27 June 1900), p. 459.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari
144 “A Legacy of Discord”

FIGURE 5.25 “Rubbing It In!” Punch, Vol. 119 (4 July 1900), p. 11.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

symbols of progress and modernity and for these reasons, Western representations
framed the event in a simplistic dichotomy of “civilisation” against “barbarism” and
“backwardness.” The Qing Court was aware of the uprising but did nothing as it
was divided between pro- and anti-Boxer factions and with its inaction, the violence
increased. Western news media started to make note of the Boxers in the autumn
of 1899 and in early June 1900, several Europeans were killed and a larger group
of Boxers began activities in and around Beijing and Tianjin. Media reports, visual
documentation, and witness accounts, along with fctionalised adventure stories for
children, and stage productions72 sensationalised the event, in particular the siege
of the Beijing legation, which replaced the Anglo-Boer War as headline news in
British papers.73
In America, a stage production of the siege of the foreign community in the
Beijing legation was a tremendous success. In April of 1901, the dramatic theatre
production, The Rescue at Pekin, was met with popular enthusiasm and patriotic
zeal. John R. Haddad asserts that the performance was intended to be “an elaborate
spectacle that would stir the hearts of spectators with patriotism, awe them with its
gigantism, and overload their senses with its colourful pageantry, thrilling action,
incessant gun fring, and booming pyrotechnical explosions.” The Rescue at Pekin
proved so successful that the attendance “often exceeded the populations of the
host cities” as people came in from nearby towns and the countryside. The Boxers
 “A Legacy of Discord” 145

FIGURE 5.26 “To Pekin!” Punch, Vol. 119 (18 July 1900), p. 47.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

were also portrayed in American flms such as Tortured by Boxers (1900) and Rescue
of a White Girl from the Boxers (1900).74
The international interest and excitement surrounding the Boxer Uprising marked
yet another signifcant turning point in China’s relationship with the global commu-
nity as the discourse on Chinese people proliferated the idea of a menacing and threat-
ening people with intense hatred towards foreigners. By the middle of the month, the
international legations issued a call for help to the coast and the foreign community
took refuge in the Legation Quarter. Empress Dowager Cixi fnally decided to sup-
port the uprising against the foreigners and on 20 June, the Qing regiment and Boxers
combined forces and laid siege to the legation, which lasted until 14 August.75
As a response, an international military coalition was formed; the eight nations
were Britain, Japan, Russia, France, America, Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hun-
gary. They were called the Eight-Nation Alliance and numbered 20,000 personnel,
half of whom were Japanese troops.76 This was essentially an international mandate
for Japan to lead in the relief of the legation in the hopes of counterbalancing
Russian predominance. Salisbury held an interview with the Japanese diplomatic
representative, pressing upon him “the fact that the opportunity was now theirs; if
they did not intervene efectively disorder might increase, & if there was a general
break-up, Russia would dominate Pekin which ought not suit their views.”77
146 “A Legacy of Discord”

FIGURE 5.27 “Quite at Home” Punch, Vol. 120 (20 March 1901), p. 223.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Britain remained deeply suspicious of Russian designs on China’s northern ter-

ritory and anxious that Russia would establish itself at Beijing [Peking] after the
uprising was quelled. Punch’s caption in “The Same Old Bear” reveals the deep
mistrust between the two nations: “You’ve got so much to do elsewhere, I’ll tackle
this obstreperous party” says the Russian Bear to the British Lion (Figure 5.22).
“Oh, thanks! But I wouldn’t leave you alone with him for worlds!” replies Britain.
 “A Legacy of Discord” 147

Navigating international rivalries amidst deep distrust while simultaneously join-

ing forces for a common cause was complex and precarious. Tenniel’s “A Legacy
of Discord,” captures anxieties that stemmed from competition with other impe-
rial rivals over power and control in East Asia, and not from dealing with China, a
nation that posed no lasting or signifcant threat to British interests. Tenniel’s cartoon
depicts a lone Chinese soldier facing the coalition and tells them, “You allee chop-
chop me now, but welly soon forrin devil chop-chop forrin devil!” (Figure 5.23).
Japan also featured in the cartoons as the new imperial rival. Tenniel’s “Rubbing
It In!” depicts a fully armed Japanese soldier addressing the coalition, “Delighted
to join you, gentlemen; but permit me to remark that if some of you hadn’t inter-
fered when I had him down, it would have saved all this trouble!” (Figure 5.24).
The treatment Japan received in 1895 resulted in Japan’s suspicions of the powers
and their intentions. There were fve occasions when Britain and Russia attempted
to intervene during the First Sino-Japanese war to quickly end the confict and
Japan was reluctant to do so as its forces were in a stronger position.78 Then there
was the pressure for the Japanese to retrocede the Liaodong Peninsula, which only
deepened Japan’s mistrust. “To Pekin!” captures this tension. “En Avant!” an eager
Japanese soldier cries to his less-than-enthusiastic looking Russian ally who mut-
ters, “I do hope his motives are as disinterested as mine” (Figure 5.25).
Despite deep distrust, once the Alliance was formed, it won a succession of victo-
ries against the poorly led imperial army. In August 1900, the international coalition
reached Beijing and by this time, most Boxers discarded their weapons and dressed as
ordinary citizens then quietly disappeared into the population. Cixi, the Emperor, and
high court ofcials fed under armssed escort to Xi’an.79 With victory for the Eight-
Nation Alliance imminent, a punitive expedition was sent forth in Boxer strongholds
around Tianjin and north and south of the capital. The German Field Marshal Alfred
von Waldersee took command and launched a brutal expedition; much of Tianjin
was destroyed, many villages were left in devastation, thousands of Chinese soldiers
and civilians were killed and looting and plunder was endemic. The American pho-
tographer James Ricalton witnessed events. In Tianjin, he wrote, “Shamefully looted
China has had a lesson in the ethics of Christian armies she will not soon forget.”80
The mission was to avenge the murder of the German minister Baron Clemens
von Ketteler, who was killed on his way to discuss matters with the Zongli Yamen
before fghting began. More signifcantly, von Ketteler’s death was employed as a
means of advancing German interests in China, in much the same way as the Juye
Incident a few years earlier.81 Sambourne’s “East and West,” brings attention to Ger-
many’s imperial ambitions (see Chapter 2, Figure 2.6). Kaiser Wilhelm stands impe-
riously over the Chinese Emperor, on his knees with hands wringing in distress.
He begs Germany, “I will make the expiations that Heaven demands!” to which
Kaiser replies, “And – you will also make the reparation that I demand!” Punch tells
its readers: if Germany is left unchecked, this overly ambitious, dictatorial nation
will expand its interests by whatever means possible.82 In another Large Cut, Sam-
bourne’s “Quite At Home” illustrates a fully armed Russian Cossack making himself
comfortable in Manchuria (Figure 5.27). The cartoon references the distrust British
148 “A Legacy of Discord”

politicians felt as Russia repeatedly tried to gain control over the British-run Impe-
rial Maritime Customs Service and planned to invade Manchuria.83
The series that Punch created during the Boxer Uprising persuaded readers that the
real threat to British interests in China were imperial rivals. While the Boxers came
to exemplify China as a barbaric and primitive country waiting, indeed needing, to
be redeemed by Christianity, Punch focused its attention primarily on the continued
distrust and trepidation between rival powers, even with the apparent co-operation
of the Eight-Nation Alliance. Russia and Germany were depicted as untrustworthy
nations with questionable objectives while Japan emerged as an equal imperial player
and represented as a formidable force. China’s weakened position was consistently
highlighted and was not a threat but became an important space upon which imperial
rivalries were played out. The series of visual and textual satire that Punch created were
used as a powerful tool to persuade readers that Britain’s presence in China was both
justifed and a requirement in order to maintain the global balance of power.

Notes
1 “A Legacy of Discord” Punch, Vol. 118 (27 June 1900), p. 459.
2 “A Touching Appeal” Punch, Vol. 107 (17 November 1894), p. 234.
3 Miles Taylor, “John Bull and the Iconography of Public Opinion in England c. 1712–
1929” Past & Present, No. 134 (February 1992), p. 100.
4 The language of pidgin was created to facilitate business between Chinese merchants and
European traders along the southern coast of China and the word “pidgin”refects its histori-
cal roots. From the lucrative trade, the language then spread to households where Chinese
servants used this invaluable tool to communicate with their British employers. One gets a
sense of how pidgin was used in a British household by Chinese servants in Martin Booth’s
memoir of his childhood spent in Hong Kong. Pidgin proved so useful a tool that Chinese
phrase books were published in order to teach the Chinese this contact language, such as The
Language of the Red-haired Foreigners that appeared around the beginning of the nineteenth
century and The Chinese-English Instructor that was published around 1862 by a missionary
school educated graduate named Tong Kit. Dr. Stephen Matthews, personal notes taken at
the University of Hong Kong, 19 December 2016; Martin Booth, Gweilo (London: Ban-
tham Books, 2005); Michelle Li, Stephen Matthews and Geof P. Smith, “Pidgin English
Texts from the Chinese English Instructor” Chinese Pidgin English: Texts and Contexts (eds.)
Geof P. Smith and Stephen Matthews, The English Centre; The University of Hong Kong,
Vol. 10, No. 1 (September 2005), pp. 79–81; Zhang Zhenjian, Language and Society in Early
Hong Kong, 1841–1884, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (University of Hong Kong), p. 182.
Zhang explains that The Chinese-English Instructor “was very popular and rapidly made [Tong
Kit] known nationally.” p. 183.
5 Holger Kersten, “America’s Multilingualism and the Problem of the Literary Represen-
tation of ‘Pidgin English’” Amerikastudien/American Studies, Vol. 51, No. 1, Multilingual-
ism and American Studies (2006), p. 78.
6 Li, Matthews, and Smith, “Pidgin English Texts from the Chinese English Instructor,” p. 80.
7 Hofman Atkinson, Exercises in the Yokohama Dialect (Yokohama: The Japan Gazette
Ofce; 1879); Leland Charles Godfrey, “A New Dialect; or, Yokohama Pidgin” New
Quarterly Magazine, London Vol. 2, (July 1879), pp. 114–124.
8 Altick, Punch, pp. 82–83.
9 Kersten, “America’s Multilingualism,” p. 76.
10 Hart to Campbell, 27 July 1894, The I.G. in Peking, Vol. 2, 979, as quoted in S. C. M.
Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895 (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2003), p. 127.
 “A Legacy of Discord” 149

11 The Empress Dowager Cixi infamously depleted the naval funds since 1889 to renovate
the Summer Palace for her sixtieth birthday celebrations
12 The Chinese army lacked much-needed ammunition and during open hostilities, found
themselves with no shells for their Krupp canons and no gunpowder to load their Arm-
strong guns. After the 1894 Battle of the Yalu River, Japanese troops found that some of
the Chinese shells were flled with cement or porcelain instead of explosives. See Bick-
ers, The Scramble for China, p. 325; Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, pp. 181–182.
13 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, p. 127.
14 Hart to Campbell, 8 July 1894, The I.G. in Peking, no. 933 as quoted in Bickers, The
Scramble for China, p. 325; Paine states that “In Europe, numbers were still believed to be
decisive: China was big, therefore it would win.” The Sino-Japanese War, p. 156.
15 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, p. 129.
16 “The Chino-Japanese War: The Art of Lying as Practiced in the East” The Pall Mall
Gazette, (London, England), No. 9210 (29 September 1894), British Library Newspa-
pers, p. 7.
17 “The Chino-Japanese War: Why the War News is Inaccurate” The Pall Mall Gazette, (Lon-
don, England), No. 9219, Wednesday (10 October 1894), British Library Newspapers, p. 7.
18 “On the War in the East” Punch, Vol. 107 (22 September 1894), p. 133.
19 “Toning It Down” Punch, Vol. 108 (23 February 1895), p. 85.
20 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, p. 189.
21 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, p. 100; Judith Frohlich, “Pictures of the Sino-Japanese War
of 1894–1895” War in History, Vol. 21, No. 2 (2014), pp. 215, 249; John W. Dower,
“Throwing of Asia II: Symbolic ‘China’” MIT Visualising Cultures. Online: http//ocw.
mit.edu. Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, p. 100.
22 At the beginning of hostilities, the Japanese were criticised for its failure to save drowning
Chinese soldiers after they torpedoing the British-owned but Chinese-leased vessel the
S.S. Kowshing. The Japanese made an efort to rescue the Europeans but ofered little help
to the Chinese and of the 1,176 people on-board, only 205 survived. The British public
reacted with outrage and the subsequent criticism upset the Japanese government. They
changed tactics; instead, they used Chinese prisoners of war to highlight Japan’s progress in
the feld of medicine as well as an ideal treatment of the captured and wounded Chinese
soldiers. Howland points out that some argue that Japan attacked the S.S. Kowshing prior
to their being open hostilities between China and Japan. For more, see Douglas Howland,
“The Sinking of the S.S. Kowshing: International Law, Diplomacy, and the Sino-Japanese
War” in Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 42, No. 4 (July 2008), pp. 673–703. Paine states that
while there are numerous reports of the faultless care of prisoners captured at P’yôngyang,
it is unclear whether other prisoners of war received the same treatment. Paine asserts that
“diaries of Japanese soldiers suggest that Japanese forces were not interested in taking pris-
oners of war” and that “the Chinese were most frequently found shot or wounded in the
back, as a rule without weapons, often only half clothed, as if they had torn their uniforms
of in order to be mistaken for non-combatant Chinese.” See Paine, The Sino-Japanese War,
pp. 175–176.
23 “The Atrocities After the Fall of Port Arthur” The Times (8 January 1895), p. 6; “The
Port Arthur Atrocities” The Times (1 February 1895), p. 4.
24 James Allan, Under the Dragon Flag: My Experiences in the Chino-Japanese War (London: W.
Heinemann, 1898), p. 66.
25 Frederick Villiers “The Truth About Port Arthur” The North American Review, Vol. 160,
No. 460 (March 1895), pp. 327–328.
26 “A Gentle Hint to the Jubilant Jap” Punch, Vol. 108 (19 January 1895), p. 35.
27 Front Coverart, Punch, Vol. 107 (11 August 1894), n.p.
28 “Jap the Giant-Killer” Punch, Vol. 107 (29 September 1894), p. 150.
29 “The War in the East” The Times (26 December 1894), p. 4, cited in Paine, The Sino-
Japanese War, p. 237.
30 Linley Sambourne Diary, Saturday October 13, 1894.
31 Arthur Diósy, “The New Japan” Japan as Seen and Described by Famous Writers, edited and
translated by Esther Singleton (New York: Dodd Mead and Co., 1904), p. 363.
150 “A Legacy of Discord”

32 “The Disease of China” The North-China Herald (Shanghai), (10 August 1894), p. 219.
33 “Our Booking Ofce” Punch, Vol. 108 (6 April 1895), p. 165.
34 “The Lessons of the Naval War in the East” The Pall Mall Gazette, 4th Edition, (22 Feb-
ruary 1895), front page.
35 “The Problem of China’s Fall” The North-China Herald (Shanghai), (5 April 1895),
p. 504.
36 “The Far Eastern Question” The Times, (26 September 1895), p. 6.
37 Paine notes that Field-Marshal Yamagata was receiving so many daily congratulatory
letters (mostly from Britain and America) on the success of the war that he needed to
hire half a dozen translators to handle the amount of correspondence. The Sino-Japanese
War, pp. 292–293.
38 “Jap in the China Shop” Punch, Vol. 108 (27 April 1895), p. 195.
39 “An Anglo-Japanese Alliance” The North-China Herald (Shanghai), (3 May 1895), p. 646.
40 “The Infant Phenomenon” Punch, Vol. 107 (22 December 1894), p. 291.
41 “The Lessons of the Naval War in the East” The Pall Mall Gazette (London), (2 Febru-
ary 1895), pp. 1–2. Cited in Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, p. 301.
42 “England’s Position Before and After the War,” The Times, (24 September 1895), p. 3.
43 “The Problem of China’s Fall” The North-China Herald (Shanghai), (5 April 1895), p. 504.
44 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War, p. 304.
45 Cited in T. G. Otte, The China Question: Great Power Rivalry and British Isolation, 1894–
1905 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 2.
46 “John Stands Aloof ” Punch, Vol. 108 (4 May 1895), p. 211.
47 “John Stands Aloof ” Punch, Vol. 108 (4 May 1895), pp. 210–211.
48 Cited in Otte, The China Question, p. 57.
49 D. McLean, “The Foreign Ofce and the First Chinese Indemnity Loan, 1895” The
Historical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 1973), p. 303.
50 Russia was the frst to react by quickly mobilising the Triple Intervention to forestall Japan’s
possession of the strategic Liaodong Peninsula in southern Manchuria. With the support of
France and Germany, Russia was able to persuade the Japanese to retrocede the Liaodong
Peninsula in return for a larger indemnity. Japan was furious but understood the limitations
of their military. It may have been able to beat China but it would not have the same success
if confronted with a united foreign military. The Japanese accepted the terms resentfully and
came to comprehend the reality of global politics; viz. they were not respected or treated as an
equal with Western powers. Japan learned that only by strengthening its military and becom-
ing a true formidable rival, could they protect their national interests. Charles Nelson Spinks,
“The Background of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance”Pacifc Historical Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Sep-
tember 1939), p. 320; for the complexities in Britain’s decision to remain neutral, see D.
McLean, “The Foreign Ofce and the First Chinese Indemnity Loan, 1895,” pp. 303–321;
Otte, The China Question, Chapter 1, pp. 28–73.
51 “Russia’s Policy in the Far East” The Spectator (13 July 1895), p. 37.
52 “Russia and China” The Times (28 October 1895), p. 5.
53 Dower, “Throwing of Asia III: Spoils of War.” Online: http//ocw.mit.edu.
54 McLean, “The Foreign Ofce and the First Chinese Indemnity Loan, 1895,” p. 316.
55 “The British Aspect of the Chinese Question” The Times (10 March 1898), p. 12.
56 O’Conor cited in Otte, The China Question, p. 112.
57 Hevia, Cherishing Men from Afar, pp. 73–74.
58 Kees van Dijk, Pacifc Strife: The Great Powers and Their Political and Economic Rivalries in
Asia and the Western Pacifc 1870–1914 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015),
p. 36.
59 Cited in The North China Herald, “Russia Shows Her Hand” (14 March 1898), p. 404.
60 The incident is known as the Juye Incident and refers to the night of All Saints’ Day when two
German Catholic missionaries belonging to the Society of the Divine Word, Richard Henle
and Francis Xavier Nies, were murdered during their visit and stay with a third member of the
Order, Georg M. Stenz. Stenz was stationed in the area, in Juye County, Shandong Province,
and he was known as an “unusually ofensive individual,” interfering in Chinese lawsuits,
 “A Legacy of Discord” 151

punishing those who were perceived to insult the church, and accused of more than ten rapes
of local women. By chance and a curious twist of fate, he was the only survivor although he
was most likely the intended target for he aroused acrimony among the population. Although
others suggest that it was Henle who was the target of the attack as he was difcult and unpop-
ular. Writing about the incident in the introduction to his book Life of Father Richard Henle,
S.V.D., Stenz states that as a consequence to the murders, “The Chinese Government agreed
upon the conditions made by the German Government – the deposition of certain ofcers,
known as Christian-haters, and the erection of three expiation churches.” Indeed, the Qing
transferred or dismissed some local ofcials as well as removed Li Bingheng, the Shandong
governor, who appeared to have had nothing to do with the incident, and cathedrals were
built at the expense of the Chinese governments. See Georg Maria Stenz, Life of Father Richard
Henle, S.V.D.: Missionary in China: Assassinated November 1, 1897 (Techny, IL: Mission Press,
S.V.D., 1915); Joseph Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (Berkeley; London: University
of California Press, 1987), pp. 125–126; Paul A. Cohen, History in Three Keys: The Boxers as
Event, Experience, and Myth (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), pp. 20–21.
61 Cited in “The Situation in the Far East” The Times (4 January 1898), p. 3.
62 “A New Rôle” Punch, Vol. 114 (15 January 1898), p. 14.
63 “Compensation” Punch, Vol. 114 (12 February 1898), p. 69.
64 Cited in Otte, The China Question, p. 113.
65 Untitled, Punch, Vol. 114 (8 January 1898), p. 5.
66 Otte, The China Question, pp. 130–131.
67 “Wei-Hai-Wei” The Times (26 May 1899), p. 3.
68 Salisbury to Chamberlain, 30 December 1897, Chamberlain MSS, Birmingham Univer-
sity Library, JC 5/67/88. Cited in T. G. Otte, “‘Avenge England’s Dishonour’: By-Elec-
tions, Parliament and the Politics of Foreign Policy in 1898” The English Historical Review,
Vol. 121, No. 491 (April 2006), p. 389.
69 “News of the Week” The Spectator (5 March 1898), p. 326.
70 Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising, p. 253.
71 Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising, for Catholics being the original primary tar-
get, see p. 242. For Admiral Tirpitz, see pp. 204–205.
72 Ross. G. Forman, “Peking Plots: Fictionalizing the Boxer Rebellion of 1900” in Victo-
rian Literature and Culture, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1999), p. 20, footnote 16.
73 Forman, “Peking Plots,” p. 23; Otte, The China Question, p. 181.
74 John R. Haddad, “The Wild West Turns East: Audience, Ritual, and Regeneration in
Bufalo Bill’s Uprising” American Studies, Vol. 49, No. 3/4 (Fall/Winter 2008), Rescue of
Pekin, p. 18; discussion of flms, p. 26.
75 Hevia, English Lessons, pp. 191–192.
76 Cohen, History in Three Keys, pp. 52–54. The Eight-Nation Alliance consisted of Brit-
ain, Germany, France, Russia, America, Japan, Austria, and Italy.
77 Cited in Otte, The China Question, p. 187.
78 Ian Nish, “Politics, Trade and Communications in East Asia: Thoughts on Anglo-Rus-
sian Relations, 1861–1907” Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1987), p. 673.
79 Cohen, History in Three Keys, p. 54; Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising, p. 310.
80 James Ricalton, China Through the Stereoscope; a Journey Through the Dragon Empire at the
Time of the Boxer Uprising (New York: Underwood & Underwood, 1901), p. 233.
81 Cohen, History in Three Keys, p. 55.
82 I am referring specifcally Punch cartoons of Kaiser Wilhelm in relation to China. Rich-
ard Scully notes that representations of Wilhelm in Punch have been highly selected to
reveal a negative perspective before World War I; however, Scully argues that the cartoons
were much more multifaceted and when considering the series, rather than selection, of
images, there were just as many positive representations of the Kaiser. See Scully, “A Pet-
tish Little Emperor.” Online: http://books.publishing.monash.edu.
83 Forman, “Peking Plots,” p. 21.
6
CONCLUSION

In Punch’s Almanack for 1901, Sir Bernard Partridge depicts the nations of the world gam-
bling. At the front of the image, a despondent-looking Chinese man is playing a game of
roulette with Father Time. The wheel, labelled “Twentieth Century,” is next to the sands
of time, a visual metaphor for the inevitability of change and of mortality. The Chinese
man is lost in thought as he sits among the world but is disengaged from the other play-
ers. Father Time is the only fgure that takes an interest in this melancholy player; as the
croupier, he is dealing out China’s fate for the twentieth century. Is the cartoon’s message
telling us that it is only a matter of time before China loses the global game of imperial-
ism? Or is it saying that only time will tell how things will play out in China? Partridge’s
prediction for China’s future did not appear optimistic. The beginning of the twentieth
century opened with the signing of the Boxer Protocol that ofcially ended the Boxer
Uprising and placed China at the forefront of British public consciousness.
More than any other event in China, the Uprising attracted the attention of
news media around the world and the visual and textual narratives gave rise to a
fxed set of stereotypes and myths of the Chinese that would have lasting impres-
sions on the Western imagination. In November 1900, Punch published a contri-
bution from a Mr. Fox Russell, satirising a diary entry from a “Mandarin Lo-Fun”
where “Lo-Fun” writes, “Foreign devils still pressing for punishment of high of-
cials. Sent for HANG-HI-CHOP” to send the foreign powers the “heads of four
or fve brace of coolie prisoners.”1 The irony of this entry lies in the Chinese
demands of execution when in reality, one of the demands by foreign powers to
settle for peace was the death of pro-Boxer ofcials in the form of execution or by
suicide, with the exception of Prince Duan who was allowed lifetime exile in Xin-
jiang.2 This “diary” entry, while it acknowledges foreign demands to punish those
involved in supporting the Boxers, it ignores the death sentence required by the
foreign powers. Instead, it turns the tables on the Chinese, making it appear that it
is “them” and not “us” who are ruled by despotic “of-with-your-head” ofcials.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003025573-6
 Conclusion 153

FIGURE 6.1 “Make Your Game!” Punch Almanack for 1901, n.p.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

Chinese corporal punishment became a Western fascination and public exe-

cutions were photographed by foreigners and circulated abroad for publication
in various newspapers, journals, and books. The images were also turned into
postcards, sent along with personal letters to friends and family, or collected for
personal use. The popularity of these photographs not only revealed the interest
154 Conclusion

FIGURE 6.2 “Outside, Sir! Outside!” Punch, Vol. 94 (2 June 1888), p. 255.
Source: Punch, or The London Charivari

and demand for such “Chinese” sights but they also formed an important part of
constructing the idea that there was an irreconcilable diference between the East
and the West.3 James Hevia asserts that the events surrounding the Boxers signifed
“deep-seated Western anxieties about global cross-cultural relations” and China
became both an example and a symbol of incompatibility and divide between the
East and the West. Cruelty and violence was promulgated as “what the Eastern half
of that dichotomy looked like.”4 After the Boxer events, China was held in even
lower esteem worldwide.5
Unbeknownst to Partridge, he was correct in depicting a forlorn and dispirited
Chinese man in Punch’s Almanack for 1901. The twentieth century gave rise to a
 Conclusion 155

“Yellow Peril” discourse that coincided with the global downward spiral of nega-
tive perceptions of China and Chinese people. It was Kaiser Wilhelm II who, in
1895, popularised the phrase, “Yellow Peril” during the First Sino-Japanese war
when he sent his cousin, Tsar Nicholas II, an allegorical lithograph by the artist
Hermann Knackfuss. The lithograph depicts the people of Europe, led by Germany
and Christianity, in their fght against the invasion of the people of the East. The
outline of the Buddha is shown in the background, surrounded by menacing dark
clouds and lightning, or, by some interpretations, by the smoke of a burning vil-
lage. The caption reads “Peoples of Europe, Guard Your Most Sacred Possessions.”6
The “Yellow Peril” discourse demonised the Chinese as opium addicts and sex
deviants. The consistent and repetitive tropes pointed to anxieties of a menacing
China outnumbering and enslaving Western people as well as refected a fear of
economic competition by Chinese labourers working on Western soil and cultural
degeneracy through contact with the Chinese.7 The “Yellow Peril” discourse was sig-
nifcant in shaping the way the Chinese were perceived worldwide and these anxieties
and xenophobic sentiments afected politics and policies in restricting immigration.
Sambourne’s June 1888 allegorical fgure of Australia refers to the Australian Inter-
colonial Conference on the Chinese Question further restricting Chinese immigra-
tion (Figure 6.2). The cartoon exemplifes fears of a rising and powerful East, bent
on invasion and conquering the “White” race.8 In 1877, Sir Archibald Michie, the
former Attorney-General of Victoria, declared Chinese immigration into Australia
was problematic because the “two people can never amalgamate.”9
Britain shared these concerns. The negligible Chinese community became an
ideal foil for a variety of grievances in British society from struggling workers
to gender relations and the supposed incompatibility between the Chinese and
Anglo-Saxons dominated British discourse in the early twentieth century.10 The
trope of barbaric, evil Chinese became standard in a variety of visual genres. W.J.T.
Mitchell describes stereotypes as “a virus that resists all eforts at eradication or
immunization” and adds that if any images take on “a ‘life of its own,’ it would
seem to be the racial stereotype.”11 By converting popular images from caricatures
to theatre and eventually flms and into the daily press and popular novels, “rep-
resentations of the Chinese underscored the implication that there was nothing to
choose between the two.”12 Edward Said recognised the signifcance of this repeti-
tive tendency to homogenise the discourse. He commented on viewers watch-
ing flms about “Crusades, Arabian Nights flms, Imperial flms, flms with exotic
Chinese – all of them are very difcult to remove from our head when later on
you grow up and you read the books.”13
Punch’s visual and textual satire played an important part of this narrative by
constructing a fxed idea of China and the Chinese in the British popular imagina-
tion. The series coincided and reinforced a homogenised narrative thereby trans-
lating Punch’s discourse from entertainment into something much more serious.
The magazine’s widespread circulation of “knowledge” was a signifcant part of
an important network of information dissemination and functioned as a vehicle
156 Conclusion

that shaped perceptions of the self and “other.” It would be useful to have evi-
dence about efects, readers’ responses, and the ways in which the cartoons directly
translated into treatment of the Chinese community living in Britain. However,
evidence is fragmented; in the words of L. Perry Curtis, Jr., the creation of these
images arise from “prejudices [that] can be traced directly from the cartoons back
to that vast subterranean culture – unwritten and full of slang – which has no place
in our respectable history books.”14
During the course of this research, I have been unable to fnd the voice of an
“everyday” Chinese person during the Victorian era in order to get a sense of the
ways in which these images translated into treatment of the Chinese community
living in Britain. Sun Yat-sen wrote about his experiences being detained at the
Chinese Legation in London in 1896 but he said little about his daily life, focus-
ing instead on his kidnapping and detention to garner support against the Chinese
government. Lao She’s fctional novel Mr. Ma and Son ofers more insight into how
the Chinese were treated in London. However, he was writing at a time when
anti-Chinese sentiments were at its height. Gregor Benton and Edmund Terence
Gomez note that antipathy towards the Chinese was at its peak around the turn of
the century and thus Lao She’s experience of living in London in the 1920s may
have difered from the Chinese experience in the 1850s.15
There were, and continue to be, no singular, static representation of the Chi-
nese. Punch’s series of cartoons from 1841 to 1901 demonstrate that while the
trope of imagery of the Chinese generally remained consistent and repetitive, the
message in the cartoons ofer a changing and shifting trajectory that coincided
with developing Sino-British relations. Punch’s textual and visual satires provide
a fascinating glimpse into the magazine’s perspective on Britain’s position among
the global community and a textured lens into wider anxieties about the state of
foreign relations vis-à-vis the British social class system as well as Britain’s self-
perception as an imperial power.
Why study political cartoons? Indeed, how relevant are cartoons and caricatures
for modern audiences? The satirical magazine Private Eye celebrated its 50th anni-
versary in 2011 selling an average of almost 230,000 copies a fortnight with sales
fgures rising 10.1% over the previous year.16 The newspaper Independent published
a commentary in 2017 stating, “as newspaper circulation continues to founder,
sales of satire and current afairs magazines have never looked healthier” and notes
that Private Eye’s “circulation soars as readers turn to satire.”17 The continued popu-
larity of this form of visual means that they deserve careful consideration and we
could only beneft in understanding their power and infuence in society. With-
out critical enquiry, consumers become passive readers of these visuals, unable to
actively engage intellectually.
In examining popular historical memory, Raphael Samuel reminds readers how
in the ancient world, pictorial art was of primary importance in learning and mem-
ory retention, “Something is not secure enough by hearing, but it is made frm by
seeing.”18 Images not only remain fxed in one’s memory in ways the written word
 Conclusion 157

does not, but they also reveal complexities and subtleties in their representations.
John Berger made note of the signifcance of visuals by beginning the frst chapter
of his infuential book Ways of Seeing by stating, “Seeing comes before words. The
child looks and recognizes before it can speak.”19 In an increasing image-conscious
world of Selfes, Instagram, and the Internet, visual language is acquired at a very
young age; to ignore the signifcance of images, including cartoons and caricatures,
can only be detrimental.
As political cartoons, these images have the potential to incite a strong emo-
tional response that hinders the viewer from thinking critically. The examples of
Jyllands-Posten “Muhammad” caricatures (2005), the Charlie Hebdo massacre (2015),
and the Herald Sun’s Serena Williams caricature (2018), discussed in the Introduc-
tion raise important questions about freedom of speech and cultural sensitivities,
geopolitical propaganda, the control over knowledge production and circulation,
as well as the diverse ways of understanding and reacting to imagery. Political car-
toons therefore became the focal points in a debate over “our” values versus “their”
infraction; a resurgence of the same framework of discourse frequently utilised by
Punch in the Victorian era. An intellectual and sensitive engagement with these
visuals will only contribute to our understanding of the historical framework in
which they were produced as well as their function. Additionally, the incorpora-
tion of political cartoons as serious scholarly source materials acknowledge the
importance of visual thinking and ocular forms of information and knowledge
formation, which directly afect how we understand and interact with the world
and our surroundings.

Notes
1 “Mandarin Lo-Fun’s Diary” Punch, Vol. 119 (28 November 1900), p. 379.
2 Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising, p. 311. Cohen, History in Three Keys,
pp. 55–56.
3 Hevia, English Lessons, p. 319.
4 Timothy Brook, Jérôme Bourgon and Gregory Blue, Death by a Thousand Cuts (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), p. 7.
5 Gregor Benton and Edmund Terence Gomez, The Chinese in Britain, 1800-Present: Econ-
omy, Transnationalism, Identity (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), p. 289.
6 This infamous drawing gave rise to various cartoons satirising the illustration for their
own social or political commentary. One such depiction was from the Dutch artist
Johann Braakensick who inverts the menacing Asian threat in “A New Interpretation of
Kaiser Wilhelm’s Picture.” See Peter C. Perdue and Ellen Sebring, “The Boxer Uprising
I: The Gathering Storm in North China, 1860–1900, Carving Up China” MIT Visual-
izing Cultures. Online: visualizingcultures.mit.edu/boxer_uprising/index.html.
7 Tobias Metzler, “We Must Prevent a Further Outbreak: Global Networks and the Fight
Against the ‘Yellow Peril’.” Conference Paper given at Transnational and Global History
Seminar, History Faculty, Oxford University, 13 June 2017.
8 David Walker, “Shooting Mabel: Warrior Masculinity and Asian Invasion” History Aus-
tralia, Vol. 2, No. 3 (2005), 89.1–89.11.
9 Cited in Auerbach, Race, Law, and ‘The Chinese Puzzle’ in Imperial Britain, p. 1.
10 Auerbach, Race, Law, and “The Chinese Puzzle” in Imperial Britain, pp. 1–14.
158 Conclusion

11 W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want? (Chicago; London: University of Chicago

Press, 2005), p. 297.
12 Witchard was referring specifcally to Aladdin pantomimes. Witchard, Thomas Burke’s
Dark “Chinoiserie,” p. 61.
13 Christopher Frayling, The Yellow Peril: Dr. Fu Manchu and the Rise of Chinaphobia (Lon-
don: Thames & Hudson, 2014), p. 9. His emphasis.
14 Curtis, Jr. Apes and Angels, p. IX.
15 Benton and Gomez, The Chinese in Britain, p. 288.
16 Ben Dowell, “Private Eye Hits Highest Circulation for More Than 25 Years” The Guard-
ian (16 February 2012). Online: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/16/
private-eye-circulation-25-years.
17 John Jewell, “Private Eye Circulation Soars as Readers Turn to Satire – Funny, That. . .”
Independent (15 February 2017). Online: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter-
tainment/private-eye-circulation-soars-as-readers-turn-to-satire-a7580826.html
18 Raphael Samuel, Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture (London;
New York: Verso, 2012), p. XXI.
19 Berger, Ways of Seeing, p. 7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Periodical, diary, newspapers

BBC News, 2018.
Daily News
Evening Mail
The Examiner, 1848.
The Guardian, 2012–2017.
Illustrated London News

The Independent, 2017.

The Japan Gazette Ofce, 1879.
The New York Review of Books
The New York Times, 1895.
The North-China Herald
The North-China Herald (Shanghai)
The Pall Mall Gazette
Punch, 1841–1901.
The Spectator

The Times (London)

The Westminster Review

Primary and secondary sources

À Beckett, Arthur William. The à Becketts of “Punch”: Memories of Father and Sons. New
York: E.P. Dutton and Company, 1903.
Allan, James. Under the Dragon Flag: My Experiences in the Chino-Japanese War. London:
W. Heinemann, 1898.
160 Bibliography

Allingham, Philip V. “George du Maurier, Illustrator and Novelist” The Victorian Web: Lit-
erature, History and Culture in the Age of Victoria. Online at www.victorianweb.org/art/
illustration/dumaurier/pva95.html.
Altick, Richard D. Punch: The Lively Youth of a British Institution, 1841–1851. Columbus:
Ohio State University, 1997.
Altick, Richard D. The Shows of London. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1978.
Appelbaum, Stanley and Richard Kelly (eds.). Great Drawings and Illustrations From Punch,
1841–1901. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1981.
Atkinson, Hofman. Exercises in the Yokohama Dialect. Yokohama: The Japan Gazette Ofce,
1879.
Auerbach, Jefrey. “The Great Exhibition and Historical Memory” Journal of Victorian Cul-
ture, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2001), pp. 89–112.
Auerbach, Jefrey A. The Great Exhibition of 1851: A Nation on Display. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1999.
Auerbach, Sascha. Race, Law, and ‘The Chinese Puzzle’ in Imperial Britain. New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan, 2009.
Banta, Martha. Barbaric Intercourse: Caricature and the Culture of Conduct, 1841–1936. Chi-
cago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Behagg, Clive. Labour and Reform: Working Class Movements 1815–1914. London: Hodder
and Stoughton, 1991.
Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations, translation by Harry Zohn. New York: Schocken, 1969.
Benton, Gregor and Edmund Terence Gomez. The Chinese in Britain, 1800-Present: Econ-
omy, Transnationalism, Identity. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation in association with
Penguin Books, 1972.
Berlioz, Hector. Evenings with the Orchestra, translated by Jacques Barzun. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf, 1956.
Besant, Walter. East London. London: Chatto & Windus, 1901.
Bhabha, Homi K. “The Other Question: Stereotype, Discrimination and the Discourse of
Colonialism” The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 66–84.
Bickers, Robert. The Scramble for China: Foreign Devils in the Qing Empire, 1832–1914. Lon-
don: Allen Lane, 2011.
Blue, Gregory. “China and Western Social Thought in the Modern Period” China and His-
torical Capitalism: Genealogies of Sinological Knowledge (eds.) Timothy Brook and Gregory
Blue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 57–109.
Booth, Martin. Gweilo. London: Bantham Books, 2005.
Brook, Timothy, Jérôme Bourgon and Gregory Blue. Death by a Thousand Cuts. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Brown, David. “Diplomacy and the Fourth Estate: The Role of the Press in British Foreign
Policy in the Age of Palmerston” On the Fringes of Diplomacy: Infuences on British Foreign
Policy, 1800–1945 (eds.) John Fisher and Antony Best. Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ash-
gate Publishing Company, 2011, pp. 35–51.
Burke, Peter. Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence. London: Reaktion
Books Limited, 2001.
Burnand, Sir Frances C. Records and Reminiscences, Personal and General, Vol. II. London:
Methuen & Co., 1904.
Burnett, John. Plenty & Want: A Social History of Diet in England From 1815 to the Present Day.
London: Scolar Press, 1979.
Chaney, Michael A. “Heartfelt Thanks to Punch for the Picture: Frederick Douglass and
the Transnational Jokework of Slave Caricature” American Literature, Vol. 82, No. 1
(March 2010), pp. 57–90.
 Bibliography 161

Chang, Elizabeth Hope. Britain’s Chinese Eye: Literature, Empire, and Aesthetics in Nineteenth-
Century Britain. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010.
Cheang, Sarah. “Selling China: Class, Gender and Orientalism at the Department Store”
Journal of Design History, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring 2007), pp. 1–16.
Chen, Song-Chuan. Merchants of War and Peace: British Knowledge of China in the Making of
the Opium War. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2017.
Ciugureanu, Adina. “Mediating Between the Mass and the Individual: Punch Caricatures
of the Great Exhibition of All Nations” Gramma: Journal of Theory and Criticism, Vol. 18
(2010), pp. 99–117.
Codell, Julie F. “Introduction” Imperial Co-Histories: National Identities and the British and
Colonial Press (ed.) Julie F. Codell. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press;
London: Associated University Presses, 2003, pp. 15–26.
Cody, Jefrey W. and Frances Terpak (eds.). Brush and Shutter: Early Photography in China. Los
Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute, 2011.
Cohen, Michael. “Imagining Militarism: Art Young and The Masses Face the Enemy” Radi-
cal History Review, No. 106 (Winter 2010), pp. 87–108.
Cohen, Paul A. History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1997.
Cordery, Gareth. An Edwardian’s View of Dickens and His Illustrators: Harry Furniss’s ‘A Sketch
of Boz’. Greensboro: University of North Carolina, ELT Press, 2005.
Cordery, Gareth and Joseph Meisel (eds.). The Humours of Parliament: Harry Furniss’s View of
Late-Victorian Political Culture. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2014.
Crone, Rosalind. “Mr. and Mrs. Punch in Nineteenth-Century England” The Historical
Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4 (December 2006), pp. 1055–1082.
Curtis, L. Perry, Jr. Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature. Newton Abbot:
David & Charles, Ltd., 1971.
Davis, John R. The Great Exhibition. Stroud: Sutton Publishing, 1999.
Day, Samuel Phillips. Tea: Its Mystery and History. London: Simpin, Marshall & Co., 1878.
Dibdin, Thomas. “Haul Away Boys” Bodleian Libraries, Harding B25 (812), Ballad –
Roud Number V21062, Broadside Ballads. Online at ballads.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/view/
sheet/4370.
Dingley, Robert and Richard Scully. “Courting the Colonies: Linley Sambourne, Punch,
and Imperial Allegory” Comic Empires: Imperialism in Cartoons, Caricature and Satirical Art
(eds.) Richard Scully and Andrekos Varnava. Manchester: Manchester University Press,
2019, pp. 31–65.
Diósy, Arthur. “The New Japan” Japan as Seen and Described by Famous Writers, edited and
translated by Esther Singleton. New York: Dodd Mead and Co., 1904.
Dirlik, Arif. “Chinese History and the Question of Orientalism” History and Theory, Vol. 35,
No. 4, Theme Issue 35: Chinese Historiography in Comparative Perspective (Decem-
ber 1996), pp. 96–118.
Donald, Diana. The Age of Caricature: Satirical Prints in the Reign of George III. New Haven;
London: Yale University Press, 1996.
Dowell, Ben. “Private Eye Hits Highest Circulation for More Than 25 Years” The Guard-
ian, 16 February 2012. Online at www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/16/
private-eye-circulation-25-years.
Dower, John W. “Throwing of Asia II” MIT Visualising Cultures. Online at https://ocw.mit.
edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/throwing_of_asia_02/toa_essay01.html.
Du Maurier, George. Social Pictorial Satire: Reminiscences and Appreciations of English Illustrators
of the Past Generation. New York; London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1898.
Dunn, Nathan and William B. Langdon. “Ten Thousand Chinese Things”: A Descriptive Cata-
logue of the Chinese. London, England, 1843.
162 Bibliography

Dworkin, Ronald. “The Right to Ridicule” The New York Review of Books, 23 March 2006.
Online at https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2006/03/23/the-right-to-ridicule.
Easley, Alexis, Andrew King and John Morton. “Introduction” Researching the Nineteenth-
Century Periodical Press: Case Studies (eds.) Alexis Easley, Andrew King and John Mor-
ton. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018, E-books online at the British
Library.
Edwards, Steve. “The Accumulation of Knowledge or, William Whewell’s Eye” The Great
Exhibition of 1851: New Interdisciplinary Essays (ed.) Louise Purbick. Manchester; New
York: Manchester University Press, 2001, pp. 26–52.
Ellis, Markman, Richard Coulton and Matthew Mauger. Empire of Tea: The Asian Leaf That
Conquered the World. London: Reaktion Books Ltd., 2015.
Esherick, Joseph. The Origins of the Boxer Uprising. Berkeley; London: University of Cali-
fornia Press, 1987.
Finnan, Joseph P. “Punch’s Portrayal of Redmond, Carson and the Irish Question, 1910–18”
Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 33, No. 132 (November 2003), pp. 424–445.
Forman, Ross G. China and the Victorian Imagination: Empires Entwined. Cambridge; New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Forman, Ross G. “Peking Plots: Fictionalizing the Boxer Rebellion of 1900” Victorian Lit-
erature and Culture, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1999), pp. 19–48.
Fraser, Sarah E. “The Face of China: Photography’s Role in Shaping Image, 1860–1920”
Getty Research Journal, No. 2 (2010), pp. 39–52.
Frayling, Christopher. The Yellow Peril: Dr. Fu Manchu and the Rise of Chinaphobia. London:
Thames & Hudson, 2014.
Frohlich, Judith. “Pictures of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895” War in History, Vol. 21,
No. 2 (2014), pp. 214–250.
Fromer, Julie E. A Necessary Luxury: Tea in Victorian England. Athens: Ohio University Press,
2008.
Godfrey, Leland Charles. “A New Dialect; or, Yokohama Pidgin” New Quarterly Magazine,
London, Vol. 2 (July 1879), pp. 114–124.
Godley, Michael R. “The End of the Queue: Hair as Symbol in Chinese History” China Her-
itage Quarterly, The Australian National University, No. 27 (September 2011). Online at
www.chinaheritagequarterly.org/features.php?searchterm=027_queue.inc&issue=027.
Graves, Charles L. Mr. Punch’s History of Modern England, Vol. II: 1857–1874. London; New
York; Toronto; Melbourne: Cassell and Company, Ltd., 1921.
Gray, Peter. “Punch and the Great Famine” History Ireland, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer 1993),
pp. 26–33.
Gurney, Peter. “An Appropriated Space: The Great Exhibition, the Crystal Palace and the
Working Class” The Great Exhibition of 1851: New Interdisciplinary Essays (ed.) Louise
Purbick. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, 2001, pp. 114–145.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, translated by Thomas
Burger with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989.
Haddad, John R. “The Wild West Turns East: Audience, Ritual, and Regeneration in
Bufalo Bill’s Boxer Uprising” American Studies, Vol. 49, No. 3/4 (Fall/Winter 2008),
pp. 5–38.
Harder, Hans. “Prologue: Late Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Asian Punch Versions
and Related Satirical Journals” Asian Punches, A Transcultural Afair (eds.) Hans Harder
and Barbara Mittler. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, pp. 1–14.
Harris, Beth. “ ‘Slaves of the Needle’: The Seamstress in the 1840s” The Victorian Web, 14
December 2014. Online at http://www.victorianweb.org/gender/ugoretz1.html.
Hevia, James L. Cherishing Men from Afar: Qing Guest Ritual and the Macartney Embassy of
1793. Durham; London: Duke University Press, 1995.
 Bibliography 163

Hevia, James L. English Lessons: The Pedagogy of Imperialism in Nineteenth-century China. Dur-
ham; Hong Kong: Duke University Press, 2003.
Hicks, Geofrey. “Don Pacifco, Democracy, and Danger: The Protectionist Party Critique
of British Foreign Policy, 1850–1852” The International History Review, Vol. 26, No. 3
(September 2004), pp. 515–540.
Howland, Douglas. “The Sinking of the S.S. Kowshing: International Law, Diplomacy, and
the Sino-Japanese War” Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 42, No. 4 (July 2008), pp. 673–703.
Huggett, Frank E. Victorian England as Seen by ‘Punch’. London: Book Club Associates,
1978.
Hugo, Victor. “Victor Hugo et le Sac du Palais D’Été” Le Monde Diplomatique, octobre
2004. Online at https://www.mode-diplomatique.fr/2004/10/HUGO/11563
Hung, Ho-Fung. “Orientalist Knowledge and Social Theories: China and the European
Conceptions of East-West Diferences from 1600 to 1900” Sociological Theory, Vol. 21,
No. 3 (September 2003), pp. 254–280.
James, Henry. Partial Portraits. London: Macmillan and Co., 1888.
James, Henry. The Painter’s Eye: Notes and Essays on the Pictorial Arts, edited by John L.
Sweeney. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1956.
Janes, Dominic. “The Role of Visual Appearance in Punch’s Early Victorian Satires on
Religion” Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 66–86.
Jerrold, Walter. Douglas Jerrold and ‘Punch’. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1910.
Jerrold, William Blanchard. The Life and Remains of Douglas Jerrold: By His Son, Blanchard
Jerrold. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1859.
Jerrold, William Blanchard. The Wit and Opinions of Douglas Jerrold. London: Winchester,
1859.
Jewell, John. “Private Eye Circulation Soars as Readers Turn to Satire – Funny, That. . .”
Independent, 15 February 2017. Online at www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/
private-eye-circulation-soars-as-readers-turn-to-satire-a7580826.html.
Jordan, H. Donaldson. “The Case of Richard Cobden” Proceedings of the Massachusetts His-
torical Society, Third Series, Vol. 83 (1971), pp. 34–45.
Kent, Christopher. “War Cartooned/Cartoon War: Matt Morgan and the American Civil
War in ‘Fun’ and ‘Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper’” Victorian Periodicals Review,
Vol. 36, No. 2 (Summer 2003), pp. 153–181.
Kersten, Holger. “America’s Multilingualism and the Problem of the Literary Representa-
tion of ‘Pidgin English.’” Amerikastudien/American Studies, Vol. 51, No. 1, Multilingual-
ism and American Studies (2006), pp. 75–91.
Klausen, Jytte. The Cartoons That Shook the World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Layard, George Somes. Shirley Brooks of Punch, His Life, Letters, and Diaries. New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1907.
Layard, George Somes. The Life and Letters of Charles Samuel Keene of ‘Punch’. London:
Sampson Low, Marston & Company, Limited, 1893.
Leary, Patrick. The Punch Brotherhood: Table Talk and Print Culture in Mid-Victorian London.
London: The British Library, 2010.
Levin, Michael. J.S. Mill on Civilization and Barbarism. London: Routledge, 2004.
Li, Michelle, Stephen Matthews and Geof P. Smith. “Pidgin English Texts from the Chi-
nese English Instructor” Chinese Pidgin English: Texts and Contexts (eds.) Geof P. Smith
and Stephen Matthews, The English Centre; The University of Hong Kong, Vol. 10,
No. 1 (September 2005), pp. 79–167.
Liu, Lydia H. “The Thug, the Barbarian, and the Work of Imperial Warfare” Modern Lan-
guage Association, Vol. 124, No. 5 (October 2009), pp. 1859–1863.
Lovell, Julia. The Opium War. London: Picador, 2011.
164 Bibliography

Maidment, Brian. “Pencillings, Cuts and Cartoons: Punch and Early Victorian Comic Illus-
tration” Punch Historical Archive 1841–1992. Cengage Learning, 2014.
Maidment, Brian. “The Presence of Punch in the Nineteenth Century” Asian Punches, a
Transcultural Afair (eds.) Hans Harder and Barbara Mittler. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.
Mantell, Gideon. The Journal of Gideon Mantell, edited by E. Cecil Curwen. London: Oxford
University Press, 1940.
Martin, Basil Kingsley. The Triumph of Lord Palmerston: A Study of Public Opinion in England
Before the Crimean War. London: G. Allen & Unwin, 1924.
Matthews, Stephen. Personal Notes. University of Hong Kong, 19 December 2016.
Matthewson, Amy. “Satirising Imperial Anxiety in Victorian Britain: Representing Japan in
Punch Magazine, 1852–1893” Contemporary Japan (2021), pp. 1–24.
Maurer, Oscar. “ ‘Punch’ on Slavery and Civil War in America” Victorian Studies, Vol. 1,
No. 1 (September 1957), pp. 4–28.
May, J. P. “The Chinese in Britain, 1860–1914” Immigrants and Minorities in British Society
(ed.) Colin Holmes. London: Allen and Unwin, 1978, pp. 111–124.
Mayhew, Athol. A Jorum of ‘Punch’. London: Downey & Co., 1895.
Mayhew, Henry. London Labour & the London Poor, edited by Robert Douglas-Fairhurst.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
McLean, D. “The Foreign Ofce and the First Chinese Indemnity Loan, 1895” The Histori-
cal Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 1973), pp. 303–321.
McNees, Eleanor. “ ‘Punch’ and the Pope: Three Decades of Anti-Catholic Caricature”
Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Spring 2004), pp. 18–45.
Message, Kylie and Ewan Johnston. “The World Within the City: The Great Exhibition,
Race, Class and Social Reform” Britain, the Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition
of 1851 (eds.) Jefrey A. Auerback and Peter H. Hofenberg. Burlington, VT: Ashgate,
2008, pp. 27–46.
Metzler, Tobias. “We Must Prevent a Further Outbreak: Global Networks and the Fight
Against the ‘Yellow Peril’” Conference Paper given at Transnational and Global History
Seminar, History Faculty, Oxford University, 13 June 2017.
Millar, J. H. “The Life of ‘Punch’” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, December 1895,
pp. 866–879.
Miller, Henry. “The Problem with Punch” Institute of Historical Research, Vol. 82, No. 216
(May 2009), pp. 285–302.
Miller, Henry J. “John Leech and the Shaping of the Victorian Cartoon: The Context of
Respectability” Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Fall 2009), pp. 267–291.
Mitchell, W. J. T. What Do Pictures Want? Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Morris, Frankie. Artist of Wonderland: The Life, Political Cartoons, and Illustrations of Tenniel.
Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 2005.
Murawska-Muthesius, Katarzyna. “On Small Nations and Bullied Children: Mr. Punch
Draws Eastern Europe”The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 84, No. 2 (April 2006),
pp. 279–305.
Navasky, Victor S. The Art of Controversy: Political Cartoons and their Enduring Power. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.
Nish, Ian. “Politics, Trade and Communications in East Asia: Thoughts on Anglo-Russian
Relations, 1861–1907” Modern Asian Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4 (1987), pp. 667–678.
Ormond, Leonée. “Edward Linley Sambourne: A Cartoonist in the Art World” The British
Art Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn 2001), pp. 5–11.
Orwell, George. Burmese Days. London: Penguin in association with Martin Secker and
Warburg, 1989.
 Bibliography 165

Otte, T. G. “ ‘Avenge England’s Dishonour’: By-Elections, Parliament and the Politics of

Foreign Policy in 1898” The English Historical Review, Vol. 121, No. 491 (April 2006),
pp. 385–428.
Otte, T. G. The China Question: Great Power Rivalry and British Isolation, 1894–1905. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Pagani, Catherine. “Chinese Material Culture and British Perceptions of China in the Mid-
Nineteenth Century” Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material Culture and the Museum
(eds.) Tim Barringer and Tom Flynn. London: Routledge, 1998, pp. 28–40.
Pagani, Catherine. “Objects and the Press: Images of China in Nineteenth-Century Britain”
Imperial Co-Histories (ed.) Julie F. Codell. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University
Press; London: Associated University Presses, 2003, pp. 147–166.
Paine, S. C. M. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894–1895. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
Pearson, Richard. “Thackeray and Punch at the Great Exhibition: Authority and Ambiva-
lence in Verbal and Visual Caricatures” The Great Exhibition of 1851: New Interdisciplinary
Essays (ed.) Louise Purbick. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, 2001,
pp. 179–205.
Perdue, Peter C. and Ellen Sebring. “The Boxer Uprising: The Gathering Storm in North
China, 1860–1900” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Visualizing Cultures (2016).
Online at visualizingcultures.mit.edu/boxer_uprising/index.html.
Peters, Diane. “A Celebration of Empire: Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee” CAML
Review/Revue de L’ACBM, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1998), pp. 25–29.
Polachek, James M. The Inner Opium War. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University,
Council on East Asian Studies, 1992.
Potter, Simon J. “Communication and Integration: The British and Dominions Press and
the British World, c.1876–1914” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,
Vol. 31, No. 2 (2003), pp. 190–206.
PUNCH Magazine Cartoon Archive. Online at http://www.punch.co.uk/about/.
Purbrick, Louise. “Introduction” The Great Exhibition of 1851: New Interdisciplinary Essays
(ed.) Louise Purbick. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press, 2001,
pp. 1–25.
Rappaport, Erika. A Thirst for Empire: How Tea Shaped the Modern World. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2017.
Rappaport, Erika. “Object Lessons and Colonial Histories: Inventing the Jubilee of Indian
Tea” BRANCH: Britain, Representation and Nineteenth-Century History (ed.) Dino Franco
Felluga. Extension of Romanticism and Victorianism on the Net. Online at http://www.
branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=erika-rappaport-object-lessons-and-colonial-histo-
ries-inventing-the-jubilee-of-indian-tea.
Reeve, Alan and Martin Reeve. “Punch and Judy at the Beach and in the Mall” Visual Cul-
ture in Britain, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2011), pp. 17–31.
Reynolds, Diana J. “The Great Exhibition of 1851 – Interpretive Essay” Events That Changed
Great Britain Since 1689 (eds.) Frank W. Thackeray and John E. Findling, Westport, CT;
London: Greenwood, 2002, pp. 98–111.
Ricalton, James. China Through the Stereoscope; a Journey Through the Dragon Empire at the
Time of the Boxer Uprising. New York: Underwood & Underwood, 1901.
Richter, Virginia. “Laughter and Aggression: Desire and Derision in a Postcolonial Con-
text” Cheeky Fictions: Laughter and the Postcolonial (eds.) Susanne Reichl and Mark Stein.
Amsterdam; New York: Rodopi, 2005, pp. 61–72.
166 Bibliography

Ruskin, John. The Art of England: Lectures Given in Oxford. New York: J. Wiley & Sons,
1884.
Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.
Sambourne, Edward Linley. Diary. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Leighton House,
Sambourne House. Online at www.issuu.com/leighton-house_sambourne-house/stacks
/5fa0d3ebf634c49a95117fbe20c7ee
Samuel, Raphael. Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture. London; New
York: Verso, 2012.
Scully, Richard. “A Pettish Little Emperor” Drawing the Line: Using Cartoons as Historical Evi-
dence (eds.) Richard Scully and Marian Quartly. Clayton, Victoria: Monash University
ePress, 2009. Online at http://books.publishing.monash.edu.
Scully, Richard. British Images of Germany: Admiration, Antagonism & Ambivalence, 1860–
1914. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Scully, Richard. “Constructing the Colossus: The Origins of Linley Sambourne’s Greatest
‘Punch’ Cartoon” International Journal of Comic Art, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2012), pp. 120–142.
Scully, Richard and Marian Quartly. “Using Cartoons as Historical Evidence” Drawing
the Line: Using Cartoons as Historical Evidence (eds.) Richard Scully and Marian Quartly.
Clayton, Victoria: Monash University ePress, 2009. Online at http://books.publishing.
monash.edu. (Accessed 11 May 2018).
Scully, Richard and Andrekos Varnava. “Introduction: The Importance of Cartoons, Cari-
cature, and Satirical Art in Imperial Contexts” Comic Empires: Imperialism in Cartoons,
Caricature and Satirical Art (eds.) Richard Scully and Andrekos Varnava. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 2019, pp. 1–27.
Short, Audrey. “Workers Under Glass in 1851” Victorian Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Decem-
ber 1966), pp. 193–202.
Silver, Henry. Diary. Punch Archive. British Library.
Simpson, Roger. “King Arthur at the ‘Punch’ Round Table, 1859–1914” Arthuriana, Vol. 9,
No. 4 (Winter 1999), pp. 94–115.
Simpson, Roger. Sir John Tenniel: Aspects of His Work. London: Associated University Presses,
1994.
Spielmann, M. H. The History of ‘Punch’. London: Cassell & Company, Limited, 1895.
Spinks, Charles Nelson. “The Background of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance” Pacifc Historical
Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 (September 1939), pp. 317–339.
Spurr, David. The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing, and Impe-
rial Administration. Durham; London: Duke University Press, 1993.
Stenz, Georg Maria. Life of Father Richard Henle, S.V.D.: Missionary in China: Assassinated
November 1, 1897. Techny, IL: Mission Press, S.V.D., 1915.
Suleman, Reena. “Out of the Ordinary: Linley Sambourne and the Amateur Model” The
British Art Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Autumn 2001), pp. 28–35.
Tallis, John. Tallis’s History and Description of the Crystal Palace, and the Exhibition of the World’s
Industry in 1851. London; New York: J. Tallis and Co., 1851, Vol. 1 & 2.
Taylor, Miles. “John Bull and the Iconography of Public Opinion in England c. 1712–1929”
Past & Present, No. 134 (February 1992), pp. 93–128.
“The Chinese War” The Comic Album: A Book for Every Table. London: Orr and Co., 1842. The
Curran Index (eds.) Lara Atkin and Emily Bell. 2017-present. Online at curranindex.org.
Tong, Q. S. “Traveling Imperialism: Lord Elgin’s Missions to China and the Limits of Victo-
rian Liberalism” A Century of Travels in China (eds.) Douglas Kerr and Julia Kuehn. Hong
Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2007, pp. 39–52.
 Bibliography 167

Töpfer, Rodolphe. De la plaque Daguerre: À propos des Excursions daguerriennes.

Cognac: Le temps qu’il fait, 2002.
Twain, Mark. The Mysterious Stranger and Other Stories. New York; London: Harper & Broth-
ers Publishers, 1922.
Tythacott, Louise. The Lives of Chinese Objects. New York: Berghahn Books, 2011.
Van Dijk, Kees. Pacifc Strife: The Great Powers and Their Political and Economic Rivalries in Asia
and the Western Pacifc 1870–1914. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2015.
Vanke, Francesca. “Degrees of Otherness: The Ottoman Empire and China at the Great
Exhibition of 1851” Britain, the Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition of 1851 (eds.)
Jefrey A. Auerbach and Peter H. Hofenberg. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT:
Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2008, pp. 191–205.
Villiers, Frederick. “The Truth About Port Arthur” The North American Review, Vol. 160,
No. 460 (March 1895), pp. 327–328.
Vorachek, Laura. “Mesmerists and Other Meddlers: Social Darwinism, Degeneration, and
Eugenics in Trilby” Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 37, No. 1 (2009), pp. 197–215.
Wagner, Rudolf G. “China ‘Asleep’ and ‘Awakening’: A Study in Conceptualizing Asym-
metry and Coping with It” Transcultural Studies, No. 1 (2011), pp. 4–139.
Walker, David. “Shooting Mabel: Warrior Masculinity and Asian Invasion” History Australia,
Vol. 2, No. 3 (2005), 89.1–89.11.
Waller, Philip. “Roman Candles: Catholic Converts Among Authors in Late-Victorian and
Edwardian Britain” Politics and Culture in Victorian Britain (eds.) Peter Ghosh and Law-
rence Goldman. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 192–219.
West, Shearer. “Tom Taylor, William Powell Frith, and the British School of Art” Victorian
Studies, Vol. 33, No. 2 (Winter 1990), pp. 307–326.
White, E. B. “Some Remarks on Humor” In the Words of E.B. White: Quotations from Amer-
ica’s Most Companionable of Writers (ed.) Martha White. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
2011.
Williams, Dominic. “Punch and the Pogroms: Eastern Atrocities in John Tenniel’s Political
Cartoons, 1876–1896” RACAR: Revue d’art Canadienne/Canadian Art Review, Vol. 42,
No. 1 (2017), pp. 32–47.
Witchard, Anne Veronica. Thomas Burke’s Dark ‘Chinoiserie’: Limehouse Nights and the Queer
Spell of Chinatown. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2009.
Wong, J. Y. Deadly Dreams: Opium, Imperialism and the ‘Arrow’ War (1856–60) in China.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Yates, Edmund. “His Recollections and Experiences: Victorian London – Entertainment
and Recreation – Museums, Public Buildings and Galleries – The Chinese Collection/
Chinese Exhibition” The Victorian Dictionary: Exploring Victorian London (ed.) Lee Jack-
son. Online at www.victorianlondon.org/entertainment/chinesecollection.htm.
Young, Paul. “Mission Impossible: Globalization and the Great Exhibition” Britain, the
Empire, and the World at the Great Exhibition of 1851 (eds.) Jefrey A. Auerbach and Peter
H. Hofenberg. London; New York: Ashgate Publishing, 2008, pp. 3–26.
Zhang Zhenjian. Language and Society in Early Hong Kong, 1841–1884, unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Hong Kong.
Ziter, Edward. The Orient on the Victorian Stage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003.
INDEX

Page numbers for tables and fgures are represented by bolds and italics respectively.

à Beckett, Arthur 37; “Toning It Down” “Back Again!” 66, 66

117 Banta, Martha 53
à Beckett, Gilbert Abbott 35, 66, 91; Bax-Ironside, Henry 137
alliance with France 35; anti-Semitics Bell, Steve 8
32; “Magnetic Ministry” 87, 89 Benton, Gregor 156
Albert, Prince 11, 31, 35, 49, 71, 80, 94 Berger, John 6, 157
Allan, James 118 Berlioz, Hector 76
allegorical fgures 9 Besant, Walter 18–19, 40
Almanack for 1901 152, 154–155; “Make Bhabha, Homi 4
Your Game!” 153 Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 35, 64
Altick, Richard 17, 44, 51 Boer War 58, 144
Anglo-Japanese alliance 124 Bonaparte, Louis-Napoléon 35
Ant and the Grasshopper, The (Aesop) Bowlby, Thomas 104
122 Bowring, John 93
Arrow War 73; see also Second Opium War Boxer Protocol 152
“Artful Dowager” 131, 132 Boxer Uprising 1, 18, 54, 116; cartooning
artists of Punch 2, 38–44; Bernard Partridge tensions in Eight-Nation Alliance
44; Charles Keene 41–42; George 141–148; international interest and
Du Maurier 40–41; Edward Linley excitement 145
Sambourne 42–43; Harry Furniss 43–44; Bradbury, William 27, 28, 29
John Leech 38, 39–40; John Tenniel 38, Bright, John 37, 94, 98
38–39 Britannia (caricature) 54, 58, 102, 106
Atkinson, Hofman 116 “Britannia Sympathises with Columbia”
Auerbach, Jefrey A. 71, 81 58, 61
Auerbach, Sascha 18 “British Lion’s Vengeance on the Bengal
authors of Punch 32–38; Arthur à Beckett Tiger, The” 37, 39, 60
37; Douglas Jerrold 33–35, 38; Edwin “Britishness” 21, 66, 73, 75, 92
Milliken 37–38; Gilbert Abbott à Brontë, Charlotte 11
Beckett 32, 35; William Thackeray Brooks, Shirley 54, 56, 58, 99; agreed to
32–33, 37 defend Eyre 61; “A Cheer for Elgin”
“Avenger!, The” 54, 57 106; Lemon and Henry Silver disagreed
 Index 169

with 60; as magazine editor 28, 29–30; Chinese Collection, Dunn’s 73–74
“man of letters” 29; political leaning Chinese Humpty Dumpty 1, 2
of 30 Citizen of the World, The (Goldsmith) 79,
Browning, Robert 11 98
Bruce, Frederick 102 Cobden, Richard 7, 84, 93, 94–95, 98;
Burmese Days (Orwell) 12 “anti-English feeling” 97
Burnand, Francis, Sir 29, 35, 39, 40, 42, Colomb, P. H. 139
55, 64; Catholicism, conversion to 31; comic journalism 51
as magazine editor 28, 30–31; political Cowan, Thomas 118
neutrality of 31 Coyne, Stirling 26, 28
Curtis, L. Perry, Jr. 156
caricature(s) 7–9; of Chinese 73; defnition Curzon, George 140
of 7; John Bull 9; Lord Palmerston 7;
“Muhammad” 8, 157; Serena Williams’ Daily Mail 64
8, 157; see also cartoon(s) Daily News 94
Carlyle, Thomas 11 daily press 16; converting popular images
cartoon(s): controversies 8; defnition of 53; into 155; “hottest” topic 19; for Punch’s
double topicality 56–58; and imperialism existence 54; subject selection 5
10–11; political 3 (see also political Daily Telegraph 60
cartoons); Russia and Japan rivalry 132, Davis, John R. 86
132; source to understand imperialism Day, Samuel Phillips 76
11; of tensions in Eight-Nation Alliance Delane, John 95
141–148; utilisation of race 73; see also Dickens, Charles 9, 18, 34
caricature(s) “Dinner-Time at the Crystal Palace” 81, 82
Chang, Elizabeth Hope 19 Diósy, Arthur 122
“Chanson for Canton, A” 99–101, 100 “Disestablishment” 56, 58
Charlie Hebdo massacre 8, 157 Disraeli, Benjamin 8
Chartist movement 18, 80 Don Pacifco afair of 1850 94
Cheang, Sarah 19 double topicality cartoon 56–58
“Cheer for Elgin, A” (poem) 106 Dowager Cixi, Empress 58, 131, 131, 132,
“China Boy & Japanese Bee” 120–122, 121 145
China/Chinese, articles and cartoons/ Doyle, Richard 31, 32, 38; “May Day,
satires on 86, 156; “Artful Dowager” Eighteen Hundred and Fifty-One”
131, 132; attitude towards, Punch’s 86–87, 88
78–79; Chinese Humpty Dumpty 1, Duan, Prince 152
2; “Chinese Soldiers retiring from Du Maurier, George 29, 40–41, 43, 91,
Service” 75; “Embarras de Richesse” 92; “The Keeper’s Nightmare” 92, 92;
128, 128; feminisation of 132–133; “Putting His Foot In It” 67, 67–68;
“A Game of Speculation” 140, 140; “shocking bad chemist” 40; Trilby 41
“Giving Him a Lift” 140–141, 141; Dunn, Nathan 73
during Great Exhibition 88; Guide to Dworkin, Ronald 8
the Chinese Exhibition at Knightsbridge
74, 75; “Hold On, John!” 141, 142; “East and West” 42
Keying 75–76; Large Cuts cartoons editors of Punch 28–31; Frances Burnand
19, 20; “May Day, Eighteen Hundred 28, 30–31; Mark Lemon 28–29; political
and Fifty-One” 86–87, 88; military leanings of 30; Shirley Brooks 28, 29–30;
and weapons, Chinese 74–75, 75; as Tom Taylor 28, 30
“Oriental observer” 79–80; “The Peace Eight-Nation Alliance 58, 141–148
with China” 76; picturing anxieties Elgin, Lord 101, 104, 106
125–141; Punch’s changing perspective “Embarras de Richesse” 128, 128
of 19, 72–73; “The Queen’s Speech – English-language newspapers 18
Peace with China” 76; Second Opium Esherick, Joseph W. 142
War 93–108; visual and textual satire, Evans, Frederick 27, 28, 29
role of 155–156 Exercises in the Yokohama Dialect (pamphlet)
“Chinamania” 21 116
170 Index

Figaro in London 35 Guide to the Chinese Exhibition at

“Fight for the Foot-Plate, The” 135–136, Knightsbridge 74, 75
136
First Opium War 73, 76 Habermas, Jürgen 5, 6
First Sino-Japanese war 10, 19, 22, 64, Haddad, John R. 144
114, 147; “China Boy & Japanese “Happy Family in Hyde Park, The” 71–72,
Bee” 120–122, 121; cover-art for 72
Punch volume 107, 119, 119; “A Hardy, Thomas 40
Gentle Hint to the Jubilant Jap” 118; Hart, Robert, Sir 117
impact on China 125; “The Infant Harte, Bret 40
Phenomenon” 124, 124–125; “Jap in Haul away boys (song) 95
the China Shop” 123, 123–124; post- Herald 136
war attitude towards China 125; shift Herald Sun 8, 157
in geopolitics 117–125; “Yellow Peril” Hevia, James 154
during 155 History and Description of the Crystal Palace
“foreign observer” 79 (Tallis) 81
“For Queen and Empire” 50 History of Punch, The 17
Franco-Russian Alliance 126 Hobson, John A. 5
“French Porcupine, The” 56, 58 “Hold On, John!” 141, 142
Furniss, Harry 43–44 “Honour à La Russe” 133, 135
Hugo, Victor 104
“Game of Speculation, A” 140, 140
Garrick Club 29 Illustrated London News 39, 74, 91
Garrick Club Afair 32 imperialism 10–11, 44, 64, 101
Gillray, James 43 Independent 156
“Giving Him a Lift” 140–141, 141 “Infant Phenomenon, The” 124, 124–125
Gladstone, William 8 “In the Movement” 58, 60
Goldsmith, Oliver 79 “Invitation, An” 96
Gomez, Edmund Terence 156
Graves, Charles L. 17, 60 James, Henry 6, 11, 12, 40, 41, 44, 52
“Great Barbarian Dragon That Will Eat Up Japan 117–125; depiction of Japanese
‘The Brother of the Moon,’ &c. &c. &c., and Chinese army 118; importance
The” 86, 87 of representation, understand 118;
“Great Chinese Warriors Dah-Bee and modernisation reforms 117; rapid
Cob-Den, The” 96–97, 97 industrialisation and modernisation 122;
“Great Derby Race of 1851, The” 85, 85 troops in Port Arthur 118; woodblock
Great Exhibition 73, 80–93; China print artists of 118
declined to participate 86, 90; “Dinner- “Jap in the China Shop” 123, 123–124
Time at the Crystal Palace” 81, 82; “Jap the Giant Killer” 119–120, 120
displayed technological achievements Jerrold, Douglas 29, 33–35, 38, 93, 98;
84; educational component to 80; “The “the little wasp” 33; “Peace with the
Great Derby Race of 1851” 85, 85; Pig-Tails” 77–78; as “Punch’s evil genius”
He-Sing in 88, 90, 91; Koh-i-Noor, 35; radicalism 34, 37, 61; relationship
display of 84; organised by Prince Albert with Thackeray 33–34, 35; writing skills
80; performing Chinese family 91; 39
“The Pound and the Shilling” 81, 83, John Bull (caricature) 9, 20, 54, 95, 115,
83; Punch’s representations of China 88; 127, 140
and sense of nationalism 84; symbolise “John Stands Aloof ” 126–127, 127
Western education and technological journalism 6; comic 51; political 53;
advancements 86; ticket process for satirical 50
80–81; working classes showed interest Jyllands-Posten 8, 157
to 81, 84
Great Power politics 125 Keene, Charles 6, 41–42, 43
Guangxu (emperor) 131, 132 “Keeper’s Nightmare, The” 92, 92
 Index 171

Keying 75–76, 88 63, 64; “What We Ought to Do in

Knackfuss, Hermann 155 China” 102–104, 103; “What Will They
Kollektivsymbole 9 Do With ‘Em?” 137, 139
kowtow 90 Lascelles, Frank, Sir 127
Krüger, Paul 58 Last, Joseph 26
Layard, George 6
Landells, Ebenezer 26, 28, 32 Leary, Patrick 17
Lao She 156 Leech, John 2, 8, 34, 35, 38, 39–40,
Large Cuts cartoons 19–20, 27, 50, 53–68; 43; anti-Semitics 32; coined the term
“Artful Dowager” 131, 132; “The “cartoon” 53; “Dinner-Time at the
Avenger!” 54, 57; “Back Again!” 66, 66; Crystal Palace” 81, 82; “The French
“Britannia Sympathises with Columbia” Porcupine” 56, 58; “The Great Barbarian
58, 61; “The British Lion’s Vengeance Dragon That Will Eat Up ‘The Brother
on the Bengal Tiger” 37, 39, 60; China of the Moon,’ &c. &c. &c. 86, 87; “The
and Chinese 19, 20; “China Boy & Great Chinese Warriors Dah-Bee and
Japanese Bee” 120–122, 121; debates Cob-Den” 96–97, 97; “The Great Derby
and discussions on themes of 55–56, Race of 1851” 85, 85; “A Lesson to John
60–61; “Dinner-Time at the Crystal Chinaman” 97, 98; “The Pound and the
Palace” 81, 82; “Disestablishment” 56, Shilling” 81, 83, 83
58; “Embarras de Richesse” 128, 128; “Legacy of Discord, A” 143, 147
of empire expansion 64; “The Fight for Leigh, Percival 34, 35; accompanying text
the Foot-Plate” 135–136, 136; “The for “The Happy Family in Hyde Park”
French Porcupine” 56, 58; “A Game of 71; agreed to defend Eyre 61; China
Speculation” 140, 140; “Giving Him a debate in Parliament (1857) 94; Haul
Lift” 140–141, 141; “The Happy Family away boys 95
in Hyde Park” 71–72, 72; “Hold On, Leland, C. G. 116
John!” 141, 142; “Honour à La Russe” Lemon, Mark 9, 26, 27, 31, 34, 38, 108;
133, 135; and imperialism 64; “The agreed to defend Eyre 61; avoided
Infant Phenomenon” 124, 124–125; ofensive jokes 51; disagreement with
“In the Movement” 58, 60; “Jap in Brooks 60; as magazine editor 28–29;
the China Shop” 123, 123–124; “Jap “man of the world” 29; “The policy of
the Giant Killer” 119–120, 120; “John Punch” 53
Stands Aloof ” 126–127, 127; “The “Lesson to John Chinaman, A” 97, 98
Keeper’s Nightmare” 92, 92; “A Legacy Lewis, C. S. 11
of Discord” 143, 147; “A Little Tea Li Hongzhang 136
Party” 101–102, 102; “London Dining Lincoln, Abraham 58
Rooms, 1851” 87, 90; nationalist “Little Tea Party, A” 101–102, 102
sentiments, appeal to 60; “A New Rôle” Loftus, Augustus, Lord 14–15
136, 138; “Nothing in the Papers!” “London Dining Rooms, 1851” 87, 90
56; “Open At Last!” 134, 135; “The
Open Mouth” 135–136, 137; “Our Macartney mission (1793) 86
Siamese Twins” 59; political cartoons Madam France 20
in 30; “The Pound and the Shilling” “Magnetic Ministry” 87, 89
81, 83, 83; “Putting His Foot In It” 67, “Mahogany Tree, The” 27, 27
67–68; “Quite at Home” 146, 147–148; “Make Your Game!” 153
represented Punch’s public identity 53; Man in the Moon, The 29
“The Rhodes Colossus” 62, 64; role of Mantell, Gideon 82, 84
editor 31; “Rubbing It In!” 144, 147; Matheson, James 107
“The Same Old Bear” 143, 146–147; Maud (poem) 95
“Seaside Lodgings” 129, 130, 130–131; Maurier, George du 2, 29, 39–44, 67–68,
“Sentinels” 135, 135–136; success of 68; 91–92
themes of school children 54–55; “To Mayhew, Henry 26, 27, 28
Pekin!” 145, 147; topics deemed for Mayhew, Horace Ponny 27, 28, 30, 34,
53–54; “The Triumph of Civilisation!” 91, 106; agreed to defend Eyre 61;
172 Index

allied with Jerrold 33; China debate in Persian Letters (Montesquieu) 79

Parliament (1857), characterised 94; Picture of Dorian Grey, The (Wilde) 18
“The Year of Expectations” 85 political cartoons 3; emotional response to
Meiji Japan 17 157; in Large Cuts 30; in newspapers 8;
Michie, Archibald, Sir 155 during nineteenth century 7; upholders
Mill, John Stuart 101, 103 of democracy 8
Miller, Henry 11 political journalism 53
Milliken, Edwin 37–38, 114, 116, 117, politics of Punch 52
121, 124; “A Gentle Hint to the Jubilant Ponchi-e picture 17
Jap” 118; “The Infant Phenomenon,” Potter, Simon 16
accompanying text to 124–125; “John “Pound and the Shilling, The” 81, 83, 83
Stands Aloof,” accompanying text to Present Position and Prospect of Our Trade with
126; provided story to “Jap the Giant China, The (Matheson) 107
Killer” 120 Primrose League 125
Milne, A. A. 31 Private Eye 156
Mitchell, W. J. T. 9, 155 “public spirit” 64
Morning Chronicle 29 Punch: Almanack for 1901 152, 154–155;
Morning Star 94 “Another ‘Sick Man’” 9–10, 10;
Mr. Ma and Son (Lao She) 156 appreciation by Westminster Review
Mr. Punch’s History of Modern England 51–52; artists of 2, 38–44; authors
(Graves) 17 32–38; during Boxer Uprising
Mundella, A. J. 7 141–148; “The British Lion’s Vengeance
Mystery of Edwin Drood, The (Dickens) 18 on the Bengal Tiger” 37, 39, 60;
Cabinet Council 31; cartoons 17, 18,
nationalism 44 19; changing perspective of China
Navasky, Victor S. 6 (1840s to 1860s) 72–73; “Chinamania”
Nemesis 87 21; Chinese Humpty Dumpty 1, 2;
“New Elgin Marbles” 104, 105 circulation table 12; on Cobden’s
New Quarterly Magazine 116 political reputation 95; contextualising
“New Rôle, A” 136, 138 18–22; defend English language 116;
New York Review of Books, The (Dworkin) 8 discourse from entertainment 155–156;
Nicholas II, Tsar 155 early history of 26–28; early success
North-China Herald, The 122, 123, 124, 125 of, factors for 51–52; “East and West”
42; editors of 28–31; during frst Sino-
O’Conor, Nicholas Roderick, Sir 132 Japanese war 117–125; “For Queen and
“Open At Last!” 134, 135 Empire” 50; and Great Exhibition 73;
“Open Mouth, The” 135–136, 137 as historical source (case study) 11–18;
Opium War: First 73, 76, 79, 87; Second inaugural issue 64; inherited expressions
93–108; see also Arrow War; First Opium and satire 9; “An Invitation” 96; John
War; Second Opium War Bull 9, 20; Large Cuts (see Large Cuts
Orientalism (Said) 4 cartoons); Madam France 20; “The
Orwell, George 12 Mahogany Tree” 27, 27; “The Moral
“Our Siamese Twins” 59 of Punch” 53; partiality for The Times
“Outside, Sir! Outside!” 154, 155 54; patriotic and imperialistic agenda,
promoted 53; plagiarised from Dublin
Pagani, Catherine 19 paper 28; political opinion among
Pall Mall Gazette, The 117, 123, 125 members of, diferences of 61; politics
Palmerston, Lord 11, 15, 93, 94, 95, 97, of 52; prejudice against foreigners
101, 103, 108 50; radicalism of 52–53, 107; “The
“Papal Aggression” campaign 31 Real Barbarian From China” 106,
Parkes, Harry Smith 93, 102 107; re-organisation of magazine 28;
Partridge, Bernard, Sir 44, 152, 154 representations of China during Great
Paxton, Joseph 85 Exhibition 88; satires on China (see
Peking legation 137 China, cartoons/satires on); satirical
 Index 173

attacks on Russians 13–14, 14; sense of Marbles” 104, 105; Treaty of Tianjin 101,
decency 52; “What Can You Say for 102, 106; “What We Ought to Do in
Your Friends Now, Richard?” 97, 99; China” 102–104, 103; see also Arrow War
“Who would have thought it?” 36; “Ye self-criticism 107
Aesthetic Young Geniuses” 41 “Sentinels” 135, 135–136
Punch Brotherhood, The (Leary) 17 Sepoy Mutiny in India 101
“Putting His Foot In It” 67, 67–68 Seventh Earl of Elgin 104
Pwan-ye-Koo 91 Shakespeare 9, 81
Shaw, George Bernard 43
“Quite at Home” 146, 147–148 Sibthorp, Charles de Laet Waldo 84
Silver, Henry 28, 32, 40; Charterhouse-
Rabelais Club 40 educated 35; disagreed to defend Eyre
radicalism 34, 37, 52–53, 61, 107 61; disagreement with Brooks 60
“Real Barbarian From China, The” 106, Sino-French war 20
107 Sino-Japanese war 128, 131; First 10, 19,
Rescue at Pekin, The 144 22, 64, 114, 117–125, 147, 155
Rescue of a White Girl from the Boxers (flm) Smith, Albert 34, 35
145 “social cuts” 53
“Rhodes Colossus, The” 62, 64 Spectator, The 128, 134, 140
Rowlandson, Thomas 43 Spielmann, M. H. 17, 29, 32, 39, 43,
Royal Academy Schools 44 49; reports on Burnand 31; Taylor’s
Royal United Service Institution 131 infuence on magazine, characterised 30
“Rubbing It In!” 144, 147 Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere,
Ruskin, John 2, 52 The (Habermas) 5
Russell, Fox 152 Struwwelpeter 13
Russia 127–133; imperialist ambitions 131; Sun Yat-sen 156
rivalry with Britain 133–136; rivalry
with Japan 132, 132 Tallis, John 81
Russophobic sentiments 139 Taylor, Tom 28, 37, 58, 93; “A Chanson
Russo-Turkish War 14 for Canton” 99–101, 100; China debate
in Parliament (1857) 94; disagreed to
Said, Edward 4 defend Eyre 61; “An Invitation” 95; as
Salisbury, Lord 125 magazine editor 28, 30
Sambourne, Edward Linley 1, 26, 42–43, Tea, Its Mystery and History (Day) 76
50; “Artful Dowager” 131, 132; “Jap in Tenniel, John 2, 8, 9, 38, 38–39, 43,
the China Shop” 123, 123–124; as junior 54–56, 116, 118; “The Avenger!” 54,
artist 68; Large Cut of 64; “A New 57; contributions as an artist in Punch
Rôle” 136, 138; “The Open Mouth” 38, 38, 50; “Disestablishment” 56, 58;
135–136, 137; “Quite at Home” 146, “Embarras de Richesse” 128, 128; “The
147–148; records on Victoria 49; “The Fight for the Foot-Plate” 135–136,
Rhodes Colossus” 62, 64; “A Thin 136; “For Queen and Empire!” 49;
Disguise” 129, 129–130; “What Will French wolf 12–13, 13; “A Game of
They Do With ‘Em?” 137, 139 Speculation” 140, 140; “Giving Him a
“Same Old Bear, The” 143, 146–147 Lift” 140–141, 141; “Hold On, John!”
Samuel, Raphael 156 141, 142; “Honour à La Russe” 133,
satire, on Russians 13–14, 14 135; “Jap the Giant Killer” 119–120,
satirical journalism 50 120; “John Stands Aloof ” 126–127,
Scully, Richard 11, 18 127; “A Legacy of Discord” 143, 147;
“Seaside Lodgings” 129, 130, 130–131 “A Little Tea Party” 101–102, 102;
Second Opium War 19, 21, 73; British and “Open At Last!” 134, 135; “Rubbing It
French forces, behaviour of 104; China In!” 144, 147; “Seaside Lodgings” 129,
and 93–108; end of 106; “handsome 130, 130–131; “Sentinels” 135,
indemnity” China 106; “A Little Tea 135–136; “A Touching Appeal”
Party” 101–102, 102; “New Elgin 114–116, 115; weekly Large Cuts,
174 Index

worked on 30; “What We Ought to Do Villiers, Frederic 118

in China” 102–104, 103 visual metaphors 9, 152; sleeping nations 9
Tennyson, Alfred 37, 95 von Ketteler, Baron Clemens 147
Thackeray, William 6, 32–33, 37, von Waldersee, Alfred 147
88; alliance with France 35; from
Anglo-Indian family 33; anti-Semitics Wagner, Rudolf 9
32; conservative 34; relationship Ways of Seeing (Berger) 157
with Jerrold 33–34, 35, 39 Westminster Review 51–52
“Thin Disguise, A” 129, 129–130 “What Can You Say for Your Friends Now,
Times, The 11, 51, 54, 84, 95, 105, 118, Richard?” 97, 99
120, 123, 125, 128, 131, 139 “What We Ought to Do in China”
Tirpitz, Admiral 142 102–104, 103
Tomahawk, The 31 “What Will They Do With ‘Em?” 137,
“To Pekin!” 145, 147 139
Töpfer, Rodolphe 7, 9 White, E. B. 8
Tortured by Boxers (flm) 145 “Who would have thought it?” 36
Tory, M. P. 84 Wilde, Oscar 18
“Touching Appeal, A” 114–116, 115 Wilhelm II, Kaiser 13, 136, 147, 155
Treaty of Shimonoseki 127, 129 William, Frederick 80
Treaty of Tianjin 101, 102, 106 Williams, Dominic 2
Trilby (Du Maurier) 41 Wolseley, Garnet 104, 106
Triple Intervention 127 Wong, John 94
“Triumph of Civilisation!, The” 63, 64
Twain, Mark 8 Yamen, Zongli 147
Tweed, Boss 8 Yates, Edmund 32
“Ye Aesthetic Young Geniuses” 41
Vanity Fair 34 “Yellow Peril” 155
Victoria, Queen 11, 31, 35, 49, 80, 88; Ye Mingchen 93, 101
declared Empress of India 84 Yokohama Pidgin 116
Victorian era 81, 104, 116, 156, 157 yuanmingyuan 104