Mr. Punch's History of Modern England, Vol. 3 (of 4).—1874-1892Graves, Charles L. (Charles Larcom)
History
Mr. Punch's History of Modern England, Vol. 3 (of 4).—1874-1892
Graves, Charles L. (Charles Larcom)
Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901 -- Humor
_Laissez Faire_ in the family circle was another matter. The authority
of the father in domestic affairs is represented as still unquestioned
even by the mother as late as 1879. But, just as you can always find
proverbs which are mutually contradictory the one of the other, so
the pages of _Punch_ constantly provide simultaneous illustrations
of opposing tendencies. In the very same year in which the doctrine
of patriarchal rule is shown to be still firmly established, _Punch_
exhibits a highly modern aspect of the relations between the two
generations. Squire Quiverfull's son, who pays 60s. a hundred for his
cigars, rebukes his father for paying 3d. each for _his_: "If I had as
many children to provide for as you, I wouldn't smoke at all."
RELIGION AND THE CHURCHES
In the previous volume it was shown how _Punch_ ranged himself on the
side of the determined Protestantism of the mass of the English people
against the growth of Ritualistic opinions and practices in the Church
of England.
The tone of _Punch's_ remonstrances was not always judicious or
considerate, and it would be easy to overrate their influence. Still,
they were not unrepresentative, and undoubtedly played a part in the
movement which led to the introduction in the spring of 1874 of the
Archbishops' Bill for the Regulation of Public Worship. As it was
originally drafted, the directory power as to worship was given to
the Bishop, assisted by a board of Assessors, clerical and lay, with
an appeal to the Archbishop with a Board of Assessors whose decision
should be final. The provisions of the Bill were criticized by Lord
Salisbury, the Bishop of Peterborough, and Lord Shaftesbury, but of the
amendments proposed those of Lord Shaftesbury carried the day, viz.
that an Ecclesiastical Judge should preside in the Courts of Canterbury
and York, to be appointed by the two Archbishops with the approval of
the Crown, and that before this Judge, and not before the Bishop, such
case of complaint, if not dismissed by the Bishop as frivolous, was
to go for trial; one appeal should lie from this Judge to the Privy
Council. These amendments gave the final character to the Act.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account